iindigo
May 2, 02:24 PM
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
skunk
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.It's good to hear that, unlike anybody else, you have a reason for your stance. Otherwise we might have to put you down as "intellectually lazy", too.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
Huntn
Apr 26, 10:49 AM
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:56 AM
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
mr. who?
Apr 13, 07:48 AM
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
Macnoviz
Sep 26, 05:08 AM
So, first it was the number of transistors per processor, then they coupled that with higher clock speeds (MHz) and now with multi-cores inside multi-processors.
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
How about Quantum computers?
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
How about Quantum computers?
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:45 PM
And marriage is legal in many parts of Europe between same sex couples
It's also legal here in Canada.
it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
And lets not forget most of the good 'ole US of A.
It's also legal here in Canada.
it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
And lets not forget most of the good 'ole US of A.
GGJstudios
May 2, 05:21 PM
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
It's not an "idea" that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X; it's a fact. Whether malware is a virus or trojan is important, because it determines what defense is required. Rather than lump everything together and erroneously call it a virus, it's more helpful to properly identify what kind of threat it is, so users know how best to handle it. Even in the absence of viruses, safe computer practices are always encouraged, such as not pirating software or downloading codecs or plug-ins from disreputable sites. In fact, it's more helpful to encourage safe computing practices than to recommend antivirus apps, which can give a user a false sense of security.
It's not an "idea" that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X; it's a fact. Whether malware is a virus or trojan is important, because it determines what defense is required. Rather than lump everything together and erroneously call it a virus, it's more helpful to properly identify what kind of threat it is, so users know how best to handle it. Even in the absence of viruses, safe computer practices are always encouraged, such as not pirating software or downloading codecs or plug-ins from disreputable sites. In fact, it's more helpful to encourage safe computing practices than to recommend antivirus apps, which can give a user a false sense of security.
balamw
Apr 9, 01:36 PM
They just need to adjust their thinking.
They're holding it wrong? :p
I agree with the overall sentiment, but it may still be something a "switcher" may not like. They may like the relative lack of noise that comes with most Macs.
B
They're holding it wrong? :p
I agree with the overall sentiment, but it may still be something a "switcher" may not like. They may like the relative lack of noise that comes with most Macs.
B
Schizoid
Apr 21, 05:38 AM
...so anyway, back to the conference call.
Apple sold nearly 5 million iPads last quarter... now this sounds good to me, why are the media reporting this as "disappointing." Am I missing something here? Surely this should be at least "pretty good."
(EDIT: sorry I'm in the wrong post!)
Apple sold nearly 5 million iPads last quarter... now this sounds good to me, why are the media reporting this as "disappointing." Am I missing something here? Surely this should be at least "pretty good."
(EDIT: sorry I'm in the wrong post!)
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
*LTD*
Apr 13, 05:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
ghost187
Apr 20, 07:36 PM
So when does the second gen LTE chip come out?
Hopefully b4 iPhone 5 this summer. I was ready to pay full price to upgrade from a HTC Thunderbolt (I am getting by with an Android because locking down unlimited LTE was the most important thing for me).
Hopefully b4 iPhone 5 this summer. I was ready to pay full price to upgrade from a HTC Thunderbolt (I am getting by with an Android because locking down unlimited LTE was the most important thing for me).
SandboxGeneral
Mar 13, 09:44 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
skunk
Mar 26, 06:57 PM
No, I'm not saying that. Skunk said Ciaociao's Latin sentence was meaningless.It was not a Latin sentence, so it was certainly meaningless in Latin. If you look up "sign", as a noun meaning signification, and instead choose the first person singular of the Latin verb meaning "sign a letter", you are not off to a very promising start. Cicero would be rolling in his grave.
lilo777
Apr 28, 03:18 PM
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
darkwing
Aug 29, 12:44 PM
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:17 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
Apple OC
Mar 13, 04:10 PM
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
Maybe your energy needs are not as high?
307,006,550 USA Population
127,560,000 Japan Population
8,364,095 Austria Population
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
Maybe your energy needs are not as high?
307,006,550 USA Population
127,560,000 Japan Population
8,364,095 Austria Population
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 04:29 PM
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 09:51 PM
Just passing through... an interesting test would be finding the determinants of large matricies of floats and ints. And I mean finding them by the straightforward stupid computation method, none of the simplification stuff.
Reasons:
1) Too large for all data to be in registers but easily small enough to fit in L1.
2) Takes a long time for surprisingly small matricies (20x20 is a huge number of calculations).
3) Stresses multiples and adds.
4) No massive-yet-trivial compiler simplifications, even for int.
5) The result has meaning.
Reasons:
1) Too large for all data to be in registers but easily small enough to fit in L1.
2) Takes a long time for surprisingly small matricies (20x20 is a huge number of calculations).
3) Stresses multiples and adds.
4) No massive-yet-trivial compiler simplifications, even for int.
5) The result has meaning.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:20 PM
Homosexuals have a right to live the same lifestyle as anybody else, under the Constitution and under the UN Declaration.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
