arkitect
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
You have no business alleging that I hate myself. Got that?? I hope you do.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
OK. Now you are just over reacting.
I pointed out your post in which you wrote that you think it is not a good idea that the media sends out a message that being gay is not a bad thing.
Got that? :confused:
Jeeezus.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
OK. Now you are just over reacting.
I pointed out your post in which you wrote that you think it is not a good idea that the media sends out a message that being gay is not a bad thing.
Got that? :confused:
Jeeezus.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:04 PM
Dissection time!
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
Buy Fast Five on DVD
fast five movie poster.
Fast Five movie poster
Fast Five movie poster
Trailer Tube: Fast Five (Super
After four attempts, the Fast
darevue fast-five-movie-poster
Download Fast Five Movie
New #39;Fast Five#39; Movie Trailer
Fast Five Movie Trailer Fast
Fast Five Movie Poster 2011
Fast-Five-Movie-Poster
Fast Five movie poster
Fast Five Movie Poster.
Fast Five Movie Poster 8289
FAST FIVE Poster : Vin Diesel
Fast-five-movie-poster
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 05:26 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field.
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 05:09 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:04 PM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
eternlgladiator
Mar 11, 08:50 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
chrono1081
Apr 20, 07:41 PM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
You obviously don't work in IT or no anything about how viruses are spread. Windows can get a virus just by being on a network with an infected machine or opening an email in Outlook from someone on an infected machine. I fix these kind of issues for a living and see it all the time. The truth is its insanely easy for viruses to get onto, and hide in Windows. Windows allows the files to completely hide themselves even if hidden and system files are set to show. The only way to see them on an infected machine is to yank the hard drive and plug it into a mac or linux based machine then you can spot hidden infected files if you know where they are located.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
You obviously don't work in IT or no anything about how viruses are spread. Windows can get a virus just by being on a network with an infected machine or opening an email in Outlook from someone on an infected machine. I fix these kind of issues for a living and see it all the time. The truth is its insanely easy for viruses to get onto, and hide in Windows. Windows allows the files to completely hide themselves even if hidden and system files are set to show. The only way to see them on an infected machine is to yank the hard drive and plug it into a mac or linux based machine then you can spot hidden infected files if you know where they are located.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
BWhaler
Jul 11, 11:47 PM
I certainly don't know, but in the past I thought Apple would of gone with the Conroe chip.
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:24 AM
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
That's very true and has a lot of potential.
But as far as I understand, the extracted .zip in finder returns a folder which contains all the files.
Ain't that true?
But even if that's not true and for a second we believe that the finder does not automatically extract .zip archives; what if a person himself opens a .zip archive to look for files?
There's a certain potential with that kind of behavior itself.
That guy needs his head examined.
That's very true and has a lot of potential.
But as far as I understand, the extracted .zip in finder returns a folder which contains all the files.
Ain't that true?
But even if that's not true and for a second we believe that the finder does not automatically extract .zip archives; what if a person himself opens a .zip archive to look for files?
There's a certain potential with that kind of behavior itself.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 07:14 PM
Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
munkery
May 2, 01:26 PM
The article -> http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/
Here is how it works:
In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open “safe” files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open. The file is decompressed, and the installer it contains launches ...
If the user continues through the installation process, and enters an administrator’s password, the software will be installed.
Here is how it works:
In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open “safe” files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open. The file is decompressed, and the installer it contains launches ...
If the user continues through the installation process, and enters an administrator’s password, the software will be installed.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:07 AM
When your moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature are bigoted and wrong, yes, we will attack you. Get used to it because that is the direction the world is moving, like it or not.
Matthew 5:10-12
Matthew 5:10-12
UberMac
Sep 12, 04:02 PM
Anybody else a little suspicious of just "802.11"...I'm thinking it's got to be 802.11n otherwise they would specify extreme. (Which means new adapters for computers on existing technology)
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
dgree03
Apr 28, 01:42 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
d0minick
Mar 18, 05:59 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
LOL Holier then thou.
Hey, some sheep aren't meant to stray from the herd. Don't knock the others.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
LOL Holier then thou.
Hey, some sheep aren't meant to stray from the herd. Don't knock the others.
brianus
Jul 12, 02:09 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:45 AM
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
emac kinda guy
Aug 29, 08:19 PM
Why do these businesses have to interfere with me? We are all now showing bromated fire retardants in our blood. Who was here first and who is interfering with whom?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
P.S. have not read the whole thread yet - I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has said.
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
P.S. have not read the whole thread yet - I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has said.
barkmonster
Oct 7, 04:19 PM
I emailed this to rob-art morgan on Saturday :
I know the test was to find out how similarly clocked G4, Athlon and Pentium 4 chips perform but I was wondering if it was possible for you to test against the 2 fastest Intel and AMD chips ?
The price of both a 2Ghz Pentium 4 and 1.6Ghz Athlon PC put's it in the same range as the entry level eMac and that's assuming the PC is built using high quality drives and components. This is true for the UK at least.
I'd suggest the following systems, I don't know the details of motherboards or specific RAM configurations but going off cpu speed and the fastest availble RAM for the systems these 3 configurations would make for a fair "high end mac" vs "high end PC" comparison :
Dual 1.25Ghz, stock HD, stock graphics card, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, OS 10.2.1
Athlon XP 2200+, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, Windows XP Professional
2.8Ghz Pentium 4, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 533Mhz RDRAM, Windows XP Professional
He responded with this :
That's a great suggestion. I'll try to get that arranged.
In the mean time, I'm working on a Pentium 4 2.53MHz + GeForce4 Ti 4600 versus G4 1.25GHz *2 + GeForce4 Ti (4600) comparo.
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Call me a pesimist but concidering how it's scrapped by when compared with lower end cpus I can see a thorough G4 thrashing coming up on barefeats very soon.
I know the test was to find out how similarly clocked G4, Athlon and Pentium 4 chips perform but I was wondering if it was possible for you to test against the 2 fastest Intel and AMD chips ?
The price of both a 2Ghz Pentium 4 and 1.6Ghz Athlon PC put's it in the same range as the entry level eMac and that's assuming the PC is built using high quality drives and components. This is true for the UK at least.
I'd suggest the following systems, I don't know the details of motherboards or specific RAM configurations but going off cpu speed and the fastest availble RAM for the systems these 3 configurations would make for a fair "high end mac" vs "high end PC" comparison :
Dual 1.25Ghz, stock HD, stock graphics card, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, OS 10.2.1
Athlon XP 2200+, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, Windows XP Professional
2.8Ghz Pentium 4, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 533Mhz RDRAM, Windows XP Professional
He responded with this :
That's a great suggestion. I'll try to get that arranged.
In the mean time, I'm working on a Pentium 4 2.53MHz + GeForce4 Ti 4600 versus G4 1.25GHz *2 + GeForce4 Ti (4600) comparo.
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Call me a pesimist but concidering how it's scrapped by when compared with lower end cpus I can see a thorough G4 thrashing coming up on barefeats very soon.
MacRumors
Sep 25, 11:29 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Daily Tech claims to have received details for Intel's next major Core-based Xeon processor (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4253), code-named Clovertown. The processors will be in the Xeon 53xx family (current Mac Pros use Woodcrest cores that are in the Xeon 51xx family), and will be available in the following configurations:
Processor # / Clock (GHz) / Bus (MHz) / L2 Cache (MB) / Price (in 1,000 unit lots)
Daily Tech claims to have received details for Intel's next major Core-based Xeon processor (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4253), code-named Clovertown. The processors will be in the Xeon 53xx family (current Mac Pros use Woodcrest cores that are in the Xeon 51xx family), and will be available in the following configurations:
Processor # / Clock (GHz) / Bus (MHz) / L2 Cache (MB) / Price (in 1,000 unit lots)
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
leekohler
Mar 26, 01:38 AM
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
au revoir
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
