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?
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:37 PM
It needs DVR recording for this price point. As someone else mentioned earlier, I can use a $5 cable to connect my computer to my TV. It need something else that will make me want to spend the extra $244 on it. Either that, or apple needs to stop touting the iMac as a media PC because the TV will compete with it.
maybe if it came with a calculator
maybe if it came with a calculator
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:52 AM
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
I understand what you are getting at. I still personally feel it is a fad, and it is drawing to a close. But I alone can't label it as such. :(
Speaking of fads, when will the current craze if wearing HUGE face covering sunglassess end? :cool: :p
I understand what you are getting at. I still personally feel it is a fad, and it is drawing to a close. But I alone can't label it as such. :(
Speaking of fads, when will the current craze if wearing HUGE face covering sunglassess end? :cool: :p
sblasl
Oct 28, 09:23 AM
I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?
Thanks
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?
Thanks
springscansing
Oct 13, 04:46 AM
This is actually my first post. Yay! Been a machead forever (using a IIgs when I was 4).
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
deannnnn
May 5, 01:06 PM
Check out this poll that was on Facebook today!
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
acearchie
Apr 13, 03:14 AM
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
No one forces you to own a TV or a TV licence for that matter?
No one forces you to own a TV or a TV licence for that matter?
aiqw9182
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
faroZ06
May 2, 06:46 PM
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
stainlessliquid
May 2, 11:15 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
and we have our first victim!
remember kids, you can only get this by google searching for it so dont worry
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
and we have our first victim!
remember kids, you can only get this by google searching for it so dont worry
Bill McEnaney
Apr 23, 12:20 AM
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
Unchecked in what sense of the word "unchecked?"
Unchecked in what sense of the word "unchecked?"
jessica.
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage 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."
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
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?
Eidorian
Jul 13, 07:17 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
jchung
Mar 18, 11:25 AM
Two separate issues.
ATT can prove if you're tethering or not. This has nothing to do with how much data you are or are not using.
Even if you use 1KB via tether and you aren't on their plan - they have a leg to stand on.
Hardly, if people are complaining about theft from AT&T, by the customer, then the very same people should be complaining about theft from the customer by AT&T. That is what this incorrect data usage accounting amounts too. AT&T charging people for data usage that they did not use and that AT&T can not prove they used (based on the experience of customers calling AT&T and their usage of the AT&T management website).
The validity of an accusation, by a thief, that someone else is a thief is questionable.
ATT can prove if you're tethering or not. This has nothing to do with how much data you are or are not using.
Even if you use 1KB via tether and you aren't on their plan - they have a leg to stand on.
Hardly, if people are complaining about theft from AT&T, by the customer, then the very same people should be complaining about theft from the customer by AT&T. That is what this incorrect data usage accounting amounts too. AT&T charging people for data usage that they did not use and that AT&T can not prove they used (based on the experience of customers calling AT&T and their usage of the AT&T management website).
The validity of an accusation, by a thief, that someone else is a thief is questionable.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:30 PM
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:08 AM
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 08:32 PM
Should they have a full-on meltdown, yes there will be fallout detected around the globe - but I doubt the levels will be high enough to cause concern after thousands of miles to disperse.
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
M-O
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
It's no. 1 with PCs excluded.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 09:38 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
spetznatz
Jul 13, 11:24 AM
[The majority of Mac users use Adobe products] Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop.
Well, you could try this...
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!:D
Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.
Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?
Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....
Well, you could try this...
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!:D
Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.
Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?
Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 09:25 AM
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 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.
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 08:05 PM
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.