carmenodie
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
puma1552
Mar 11, 08:18 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
more...
Macaroony
Apr 24, 01:34 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
alex_ant
Oct 8, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
Gelfin
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
more...
bluap84
Mar 11, 03:25 AM
The Guardian has a good updated feed here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake) if anyone wants to be kept updated
more...
skunk
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
more...
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.
more...
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
more...
Fill this LEGO with epoxy glue
Semi-Automatic Pistol
more...
and District 9 Arc Gun.
more...
Fully automatic lego quot;gum gunquot;
DIY Pulse Laser Gun main
The jeep was small and compact
the crossbow weapon many
more...
compact and easily-handled
more...
more compact weapons,
more...
He also has his Crossbow and
more...
more...
more...
more...
more...
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
more...
MacRumors
May 2, 08:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. 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.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. 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.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
more...
alfonsog
Mar 18, 10:11 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
more...
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:46 PM
nixd2001, others:
Please note I am editing my previos post (last one on page 7) to address the issue.
Please note I am editing my previos post (last one on page 7) to address the issue.
Squire
Sep 20, 08:56 AM
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
einmusiker
Mar 18, 09:46 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!)
Thanks for the insight Debbie downer
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Thanks for the insight Debbie downer
more...
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
more...
bradl
Mar 18, 01:52 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
more...
iJohnHenry
Mar 24, 06:52 PM
The Vatican, and the Pope by extension, is rapidly becoming "Captain Dunsel" in the ST-TOS vernacular.
more...
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:22 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.Not to the holder of the copyright.
more...
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 08:17 PM
Sorry for all the posts. I seem to have more opinions and questions than usual today.
Will it be possible for a third party software company to write a front-end client for the iTunes Music Store that plays by "the rules" (paying for purchases, allowing or applying DRM) but has other features that iTunes lacks, in a way that wouldn't be a problem for Apple?
I'll make up an dopey example. Maybe there's a use for an auto-purchasing tool that waits for a certain time (e.g., the exact release day/time of a new tune) and then purchases the song. Must it be written by scripting iTunes or could it work standalone? Can Apple permit this without a risk to its business?
iTunes is a cross-platform jack of all trades, for purchasing music, organizing music, playing music, handling iPods, interfacing with other iApps, etc. I think it's a very well done application, but it's a shame if the DRM issue prevents the free market from trying to produce a better mousetrap for any of these functions, including interfacing with the store, because what could be an open interface must be closed.
Will it be possible for a third party software company to write a front-end client for the iTunes Music Store that plays by "the rules" (paying for purchases, allowing or applying DRM) but has other features that iTunes lacks, in a way that wouldn't be a problem for Apple?
I'll make up an dopey example. Maybe there's a use for an auto-purchasing tool that waits for a certain time (e.g., the exact release day/time of a new tune) and then purchases the song. Must it be written by scripting iTunes or could it work standalone? Can Apple permit this without a risk to its business?
iTunes is a cross-platform jack of all trades, for purchasing music, organizing music, playing music, handling iPods, interfacing with other iApps, etc. I think it's a very well done application, but it's a shame if the DRM issue prevents the free market from trying to produce a better mousetrap for any of these functions, including interfacing with the store, because what could be an open interface must be closed.
more...
Sydde
Mar 24, 07:29 PM
Don't be so disingenuous. The Catholic church has stigmatised gays relentlessly.
"Stigmatised"? Is that a best-case description of what the church has done?
"Stigmatised"? Is that a best-case description of what the church has done?
more...
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
I'm just trying to find out how much you really love freedom.
So what is it?
Thumbs up for giving gays the freedom to legally commit themselves to a life-long partnership?
Or thumbs down?
I'm just trying to find out how much you really love freedom.
So what is it?
Thumbs up for giving gays the freedom to legally commit themselves to a life-long partnership?
Or thumbs down?
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
more...