AJsAWiz
Aug 31, 06:38 PM
It's not just "newbies" that have excessive dropped calls on AT&T (and the iPhone in particular). If you really think it is, you haven't been paying attention to this board for the last three years.
I agree. I've been with AT&T since the original iPhone. Reception had been fine up until about a year ago. I, now, have the 3 GS and have had nothing but trouble, with dropped calls and weak inconsistent or non existent signals, for well over the past year or so. I've made multiple calls to AT&T to no avail. Some reps even refuse to acknowledge the problem. The bottom line is that my current contract ends in January 2011. So, I'll more than likely jump the iPhone ship and migrate to the Android then. It's a shame because . . . as David Letterman said . . . you can do everything on an iPhone but make and receive calls :p
Side note:
AT&T's customer service has been so bad I even dropped their home phone service and went to another provider.
I agree. I've been with AT&T since the original iPhone. Reception had been fine up until about a year ago. I, now, have the 3 GS and have had nothing but trouble, with dropped calls and weak inconsistent or non existent signals, for well over the past year or so. I've made multiple calls to AT&T to no avail. Some reps even refuse to acknowledge the problem. The bottom line is that my current contract ends in January 2011. So, I'll more than likely jump the iPhone ship and migrate to the Android then. It's a shame because . . . as David Letterman said . . . you can do everything on an iPhone but make and receive calls :p
Side note:
AT&T's customer service has been so bad I even dropped their home phone service and went to another provider.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
Most Atheists do not preach at others to not believe ... they just do not buy into the concept that religious people hang onto.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
mrblah
Aug 29, 02:33 PM
I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:55 AM
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:56 PM
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
It's funny how social attitudes change. In Christian Rome it was considered perfectly normal for men to have (male) child partners (although this seems to be coming back into fashion in the Catholic church).
In Sparta homosexuality was encouraged because it was thought that spending too much time with women would weaken and feminise the male warriors.
In other city states in ancient Greece homosexuality was also considered the norm.
It's funny how social attitudes change. In Christian Rome it was considered perfectly normal for men to have (male) child partners (although this seems to be coming back into fashion in the Catholic church).
In Sparta homosexuality was encouraged because it was thought that spending too much time with women would weaken and feminise the male warriors.
In other city states in ancient Greece homosexuality was also considered the norm.
rasmasyean
Apr 24, 03:56 AM
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
chown33
Apr 10, 06:46 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Two ways come to mind:
1. Make a folder called "Favorite Apps" or whatever.
Add it to the Dock by dragging it there.
Put aliases to your favorite apps there.
You can do this with any number of folders, so you can make collections of related tools (e.g. Video Favorites, Writing Favorites, whatever). You can also arrange the tools in sub-folders. I've done this for years with a DevTools folder of development-tool applications.
2. System Preferences > Appearance pane.
At "Number of recent items" make sure 10 or 15 or whatever Applications is enabled.
Apple menu > Recent Items > Applications
The designated number of recently opened applications will be listed.
Two ways come to mind:
1. Make a folder called "Favorite Apps" or whatever.
Add it to the Dock by dragging it there.
Put aliases to your favorite apps there.
You can do this with any number of folders, so you can make collections of related tools (e.g. Video Favorites, Writing Favorites, whatever). You can also arrange the tools in sub-folders. I've done this for years with a DevTools folder of development-tool applications.
2. System Preferences > Appearance pane.
At "Number of recent items" make sure 10 or 15 or whatever Applications is enabled.
Apple menu > Recent Items > Applications
The designated number of recently opened applications will be listed.
skunk
Mar 27, 03:10 PM
But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed.The point, though it's off-topic, is that your RC friend (that's a homophone, by the way) wanted, for reasons best known to himself, to communicate with you in Latin, but to translate a "sign of contradiction" you have to use the word for "sign" as in signifier (n), rather than the word for "sign" as in sign your name (vb). He obviously looked up the wrong meaning and thus mangled his translation.
awmazz
Mar 12, 03:29 AM
Of course as with all nuclear disasters there's the usual 'don't worry, it's not that bad' while at the same time they evacuate 45,000 people from the immediate surrounds..
Analysts say a meltdown would not necessarily lead to a major disaster because light-water reactors would not explode even if they overheated.
Well, that map seems to show Japan itself will be okay from the fallout at least.
EDIT- They've extended the evacuation radius around the #2 plant to 10km, the same as the #1 plant. The #1 plant is the one which had the explosion.
Analysts say a meltdown would not necessarily lead to a major disaster because light-water reactors would not explode even if they overheated.
Well, that map seems to show Japan itself will be okay from the fallout at least.
EDIT- They've extended the evacuation radius around the #2 plant to 10km, the same as the #1 plant. The #1 plant is the one which had the explosion.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
2ndPath
Sep 26, 03:13 AM
I wonder whether Apple will keep the two Woodcrest quad-core configuration, or whether they introduce a new single CPU quad-core one for the new low end. When Apple switched to the dual-core G5, they replaced the dual CPU lower end systems by single CPU dual-core systems, which was suspected to reduce the building cost of the system.
Cabbit
Apr 15, 11:21 AM
I've never encountered discrimination of LSBT in ether Scotland, Germany, or Thailand. But i did encounter it a lot in the USA it was very surreal and with my partner living in the USA just now studying i hear he gets bullied a lot in college just for being transgendered which is just absolutely crazy and he'll is glad to coming back to Europe in the next few months.
This is a real issue i feel that needs to be tackled in the USA as before i went i had assumed that people would be a lot more open there than they were.
This is a real issue i feel that needs to be tackled in the USA as before i went i had assumed that people would be a lot more open there than they were.
Backtothemac
Oct 9, 12:22 PM
Ok,
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
milbournosphere
Apr 15, 09:08 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:29 PM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
Equal in what respect(s)? No one is absolutely equal to anyone else, is he?
Equal in what respect(s)? No one is absolutely equal to anyone else, is he?
KingYaba
Mar 25, 12:12 AM
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
Well said and I agree.
Well said and I agree.
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:54 AM
encourage[/I] people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
dr_lha
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The speculation from my general area is that Apple will never (never say never, right..) make a DVR. It's not in their interest to make a DVR. There are several companies that are doing the DVR thing for Macs (el gato and Migila) and IMO, Apple shouldn't tread those waters.
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
Good to see some people around here "get it".
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
Good to see some people around here "get it".
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 03:09 PM
OK, so you want a completely independent tablet that does not communicate with anyone or anything unless you want it to but can still be useful as is. I don't think you are going to enjoy the next decade. That world is being pushed aside by the connected future. So while you will be able to get the tablet you want, it won't be the tablet most people will want.
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
Machead III
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
ender land
Apr 23, 11:20 PM
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
kingtj
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
I can't speak for everyone, but I found myself torn between clicking to rate it positive, or to rate it negative. Why? Not strictly because I think there was anything wrong with someone from Apple participating in this project and contributing.... But more because in a larger, overall sense, I think the whole "bullying" thing is being blown out of proportion in recent years.
Basically, it's just the latest crusade for folks to take up, as yet another "we've gotta do anything to save the children!" move.
I'm a 40 year old adult, but I remember clearly struggling with lots of being bullied from the time I was in 1st. or 2nd. grade through the first half of high-school. I was a kid who didn't really fit in with any of the norms. I didn't like organized sports, and was really bad at playing them. I was really into science-fiction/fantasy when that was decidedly "uncool" to show any interest in. And I didn't have any clue, or care, about dressing in whichever clothing styles were considered "in style".
There was a point, during my early high-school years where I even thought about "ending it all" on a daily basis. (Only reason I didn't go through with it is because I think I was too chicken and afraid of pain to attempt it.)
Even given that background? I still can't see how all this "anti-bullying" nonsense will accomplish much? I know in my situation, every time teachers or faculty were called upon to try to "do something" about my problems, it only made matters worse. It's part of human nature that kids have mean streaks, and the only thing that's guaranteed to make a bully stop bullying you is to stand up for yourself, to his/her face. Asking OTHER people to solve the problem just escalates it, most of the time. (The faculty or teachers or even police can't guard a kid 100% of the time. Eventually, the kid(s) harassing him/her are going to corner the kid in a place where the parental figures aren't able to intervene, and it's going to get ugly -- especially since now it's about "payback" for getting those authority figures involved.)
Only 2 things ever remedied my situation. #1 was fighting back, punching a kid square in the jaw and sending him to the nurse's office, when he started chasing after me on the school playground. I earned a TON of respect that day and a whole lot of people who used to harass me backed off after that. #2 was getting older, along with my peers, and all of us simply growing out of that phase where being different was perceived as a negative.
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
Basically, it's just the latest crusade for folks to take up, as yet another "we've gotta do anything to save the children!" move.
I'm a 40 year old adult, but I remember clearly struggling with lots of being bullied from the time I was in 1st. or 2nd. grade through the first half of high-school. I was a kid who didn't really fit in with any of the norms. I didn't like organized sports, and was really bad at playing them. I was really into science-fiction/fantasy when that was decidedly "uncool" to show any interest in. And I didn't have any clue, or care, about dressing in whichever clothing styles were considered "in style".
There was a point, during my early high-school years where I even thought about "ending it all" on a daily basis. (Only reason I didn't go through with it is because I think I was too chicken and afraid of pain to attempt it.)
Even given that background? I still can't see how all this "anti-bullying" nonsense will accomplish much? I know in my situation, every time teachers or faculty were called upon to try to "do something" about my problems, it only made matters worse. It's part of human nature that kids have mean streaks, and the only thing that's guaranteed to make a bully stop bullying you is to stand up for yourself, to his/her face. Asking OTHER people to solve the problem just escalates it, most of the time. (The faculty or teachers or even police can't guard a kid 100% of the time. Eventually, the kid(s) harassing him/her are going to corner the kid in a place where the parental figures aren't able to intervene, and it's going to get ugly -- especially since now it's about "payback" for getting those authority figures involved.)
Only 2 things ever remedied my situation. #1 was fighting back, punching a kid square in the jaw and sending him to the nurse's office, when he started chasing after me on the school playground. I earned a TON of respect that day and a whole lot of people who used to harass me backed off after that. #2 was getting older, along with my peers, and all of us simply growing out of that phase where being different was perceived as a negative.
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
cgc
Sep 26, 08:35 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
