Rodimus Prime
Mar 23, 05:14 PM
im not a phone genius but i am pretty sure the Android is cross-carrier. If it surpasses the iPhone any time soon, it will be because of that. But i guarantee that if the iPhone went cross-carrier as well, we would see a HUGE jump in sales in which Android will plummet. Think about it. a REALLY BIG reason a lot of people go with the Android is because the iPhone isnt available on their carrier.
IMHO
iPhone has already gone cross carriers in other parts of the world and we did not see a huge jump.
Android is going to pass the iPhone because of choices and on multiple types of hardware. Some people want a hardware keyboard other want all touch screen, Some want smaller sizes and so on.
iPhone is take it or leave it. Android phones you have a lot more choices on hardware.
IMHO
iPhone has already gone cross carriers in other parts of the world and we did not see a huge jump.
Android is going to pass the iPhone because of choices and on multiple types of hardware. Some people want a hardware keyboard other want all touch screen, Some want smaller sizes and so on.
iPhone is take it or leave it. Android phones you have a lot more choices on hardware.
munkery
May 2, 04:14 PM
I'm curious how it auto-executes the installer because that can have potential damaging results for a user account, without privilege escalation. My data is all in my user account, I don't care about a few system files so much as I care about my data.
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
Bakey
Jul 12, 01:47 AM
I guess time will tell, but Apple needs to get something kickass out the door around WWDC. I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
Pro desktops are not quite the last piece of the puzzle! PowerMac replacements and xServes are all that are needed to make "the circle complete".
The iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac and Mac mini have all had/have their Intel equivalents as we all know... here's to waiting! And like so many on these forums my CC is clear and ready to melt... ;)
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
I guess they may install integrated graphic chipsets as an option for the 'new' range of xServes [although I'm guessing IG won't be an option - rather they're already there with option of over-riding them via a dedicated graphics card]; I'm obviously speculating and thinking along the lines that the majority of xServe installs are simply that 'installs' and not graphic workhorses, etc.
Either way, the countdown to WWDC has begun...!! :D
Pro desktops are not quite the last piece of the puzzle! PowerMac replacements and xServes are all that are needed to make "the circle complete".
The iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac and Mac mini have all had/have their Intel equivalents as we all know... here's to waiting! And like so many on these forums my CC is clear and ready to melt... ;)
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
I guess they may install integrated graphic chipsets as an option for the 'new' range of xServes [although I'm guessing IG won't be an option - rather they're already there with option of over-riding them via a dedicated graphics card]; I'm obviously speculating and thinking along the lines that the majority of xServe installs are simply that 'installs' and not graphic workhorses, etc.
Either way, the countdown to WWDC has begun...!! :D
geezusfreeek
Mar 18, 06:31 PM
All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 09:25 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
brianus
Sep 27, 08:44 AM
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Not to mention the fact that they waited a month and a half after Woodcrest was released to announce the Mac Pro and Intel XServes -- based not on Intel processor release schedules but on Mac conference schedules. Then again, this is just a "core bump", rather than a truly new product or chip; IIRC the Quad G5 followed fairly soon after the dual-core G5 processors were announced. Then again AGAIN, the XServes won't even be available 'till October; would they really update them again one or two months later?
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Not to mention the fact that they waited a month and a half after Woodcrest was released to announce the Mac Pro and Intel XServes -- based not on Intel processor release schedules but on Mac conference schedules. Then again, this is just a "core bump", rather than a truly new product or chip; IIRC the Quad G5 followed fairly soon after the dual-core G5 processors were announced. Then again AGAIN, the XServes won't even be available 'till October; would they really update them again one or two months later?
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:15 PM
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
Huntn
Apr 23, 10:39 PM
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 11:49 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 03:16 PM
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
That's what I mean by tin foil hats... it really isn't bad for you, unless you're getting mutliple does every day. This is why the technician stands behind shielding... without it their average exposure would be astronomical, consider the math alone. Lets say a technician gives 20 x-rays in one day... you can do it from here.
Did you even read what I posted? You may believe in the linear no threshold model (which you clearly do), but if people in Denver Colorado get 1000 mrem a year and statistically have no ill effects, how can you even say that? An xray clearly isn't bad for you. At all. You get at least 310 mrem of exposure from the environment itself yearly. Also, do you know about biological systems at all? If you did, you'd realize that radiation exposure isn't that bad, and that genetic repair is incredibly commonplace.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
Unfortunately, I have the same distrust issue as you do, with the only difference being me not trusting most news media for scientific facts and extrapolations. Many so called "experts" called on for media usually are highly political or vocal people usually removed from day to day science, and typically have an agenda of some sort. Like you, I don't trust the Japanese government entirely either.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own. No sense yelling fire if there isn't one. I'm not saying that there won't ever be issues, just that I believe that there isn't a major issue right now (and if they were up to par on safety features, we shouldn't have even gotten this far).
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
The reason I say if is because there's no proof either way. Everyone's speculating right now; no one has access to the core. The core temperature sensors aren't working. It could be a partial meltdown, it could not be. Nevertheless, as long as it remains contained, there wont be a safety issue. Remember that BWRs generate heat even with the control rods; if one of those rods became damaged, heat output would increase.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it. I fully understand the lack in confidence you feel; it never should have gotten to the boric acid seawater. That said, they should have had multiple redundant systems for backup generators, as is required in many places. Furthermore, since the rest of their grid is up, why don't they have an electric pump there? The military has large industrial grade pumps...
See, this event doesn't scream the lack of nuclear safety to me, it screams the lack of proper handling and maintenance of basic safety protocols. With systems in place elsewhere in the world, this never would have gotten this far.
That's what I mean by tin foil hats... it really isn't bad for you, unless you're getting mutliple does every day. This is why the technician stands behind shielding... without it their average exposure would be astronomical, consider the math alone. Lets say a technician gives 20 x-rays in one day... you can do it from here.
Did you even read what I posted? You may believe in the linear no threshold model (which you clearly do), but if people in Denver Colorado get 1000 mrem a year and statistically have no ill effects, how can you even say that? An xray clearly isn't bad for you. At all. You get at least 310 mrem of exposure from the environment itself yearly. Also, do you know about biological systems at all? If you did, you'd realize that radiation exposure isn't that bad, and that genetic repair is incredibly commonplace.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
Unfortunately, I have the same distrust issue as you do, with the only difference being me not trusting most news media for scientific facts and extrapolations. Many so called "experts" called on for media usually are highly political or vocal people usually removed from day to day science, and typically have an agenda of some sort. Like you, I don't trust the Japanese government entirely either.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own. No sense yelling fire if there isn't one. I'm not saying that there won't ever be issues, just that I believe that there isn't a major issue right now (and if they were up to par on safety features, we shouldn't have even gotten this far).
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
The reason I say if is because there's no proof either way. Everyone's speculating right now; no one has access to the core. The core temperature sensors aren't working. It could be a partial meltdown, it could not be. Nevertheless, as long as it remains contained, there wont be a safety issue. Remember that BWRs generate heat even with the control rods; if one of those rods became damaged, heat output would increase.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it. I fully understand the lack in confidence you feel; it never should have gotten to the boric acid seawater. That said, they should have had multiple redundant systems for backup generators, as is required in many places. Furthermore, since the rest of their grid is up, why don't they have an electric pump there? The military has large industrial grade pumps...
See, this event doesn't scream the lack of nuclear safety to me, it screams the lack of proper handling and maintenance of basic safety protocols. With systems in place elsewhere in the world, this never would have gotten this far.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:00 PM
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
chabig
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit.They could, but it would cost a lot more.
WilliamBos
Apr 14, 05:34 PM
After getting a new mini for my b-day, I have to wait until tomorrow to use it, as I need the apple only DVI-VGA adapter. Aftermarket stuff don't work... :(
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:43 AM
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
It certainly seems that you are questioning the point.
You raised the point that it is/was illogical for me to believe that the life and the universe appeared in a sudden "bang". And you claimed that such a belief could not be possibly based in logic :rolleyes:.
Of course I never purported to believe any such thing, rather you simply implied that this is what I believe.
In my original post I never claimed to understand or remotely fathom how the universe and life came to exist. But the fact that I do not know how our universe came to be has very little baring on this conversation.
I have very little understanding of how the computer I am currently using ACTUALLY works. Yet work it does, it does not work through the grace of god but rather through marvels of modern engineering and achievements in scientific understanding.
Your god of the gaps is simply a dark room waiting for someone to turn on the light.
It certainly seems that you are questioning the point.
You raised the point that it is/was illogical for me to believe that the life and the universe appeared in a sudden "bang". And you claimed that such a belief could not be possibly based in logic :rolleyes:.
Of course I never purported to believe any such thing, rather you simply implied that this is what I believe.
In my original post I never claimed to understand or remotely fathom how the universe and life came to exist. But the fact that I do not know how our universe came to be has very little baring on this conversation.
I have very little understanding of how the computer I am currently using ACTUALLY works. Yet work it does, it does not work through the grace of god but rather through marvels of modern engineering and achievements in scientific understanding.
Your god of the gaps is simply a dark room waiting for someone to turn on the light.
Vulpinemac
Apr 28, 09:47 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
ACED
Mar 18, 04:15 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:36 PM
Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
fatfreddy
Mar 11, 04:46 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=016_1299829101
More footage.
More footage.
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 12:12 AM
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
macnulty
Mar 19, 07:32 AM
Um, you still have to buy the song, he hasn't cracked the DRM, and the user has to use a program other then iTunes to execute. It would seem to me the easiest thing for Apple is to use a more stringent iTunes identifier. After all, all us non-IE users should be familiar with this concept.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
