citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:47 PM
you forgot contained to the universe:rolleyes:
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:09 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Uh, that's not true. Applications that don't use any of the seven (I think) multitasking API's go into a saved state; an application that uses one of those API's continues running (the particular task that the API allows).
The funny thing is that it is almost identical to Android's implementation. Unless an application is explicitly programmed to run in the background it goes into a saved state.
Uh, that's not true. Applications that don't use any of the seven (I think) multitasking API's go into a saved state; an application that uses one of those API's continues running (the particular task that the API allows).
The funny thing is that it is almost identical to Android's implementation. Unless an application is explicitly programmed to run in the background it goes into a saved state.
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
theheadguy
May 5, 07:02 PM
I've never had a dropped call.
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Works fine for me here in L.A.
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call.
I haven't had any dropped calls yet.
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
Dismissive Title Macrumors!No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Get your politics out of this thread. There is a place on this site (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) for that crap.
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Works fine for me here in L.A.
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call.
I haven't had any dropped calls yet.
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
Dismissive Title Macrumors!No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Get your politics out of this thread. There is a place on this site (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) for that crap.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:39 PM
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ...
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
ChrisA
Sep 26, 12:08 PM
What incentive does anyone ever have to buy if they keep announcing new chips?
What incentive? Money. If you need to get some work out to a client you need to have some kind of computer. For example we bought a new Dual Xeon system with 4GB RAM and a set of SCSI disks because the old box was "way slow" now I can do many more Build/Test/Debug cycles every day. Yes there are now even faster boxes but I've gotten much more work done that had we waited would not have gotten done. The $4500 computer paid for it self rather quickly
On the other hand if a computer is to be used as a game console and media player you can never justify the price. It's just a toy and you buy it with "disposable" income with no hope of a return on the investment
But most of these Mac Pros are sold to people who at least hope to make more money with the machine than they spent for it. So for most users waiting is simply to expensive.
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space?
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
What incentive? Money. If you need to get some work out to a client you need to have some kind of computer. For example we bought a new Dual Xeon system with 4GB RAM and a set of SCSI disks because the old box was "way slow" now I can do many more Build/Test/Debug cycles every day. Yes there are now even faster boxes but I've gotten much more work done that had we waited would not have gotten done. The $4500 computer paid for it self rather quickly
On the other hand if a computer is to be used as a game console and media player you can never justify the price. It's just a toy and you buy it with "disposable" income with no hope of a return on the investment
But most of these Mac Pros are sold to people who at least hope to make more money with the machine than they spent for it. So for most users waiting is simply to expensive.
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space?
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
blackcrayon
May 2, 10:38 AM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:50 PM
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
Salacion
Apr 20, 06:57 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
No, it's not comparable to the iPhone.
Interface: harsh colors, sharp geometrics, poor graphical enhancements, Windows-esque aesthetics.
About that last one. There might be an Android app with identical functionality to an iPhone app, but it's how that functionality is presented to you that makes the difference. See, the App Store has quality control.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
No, it's not comparable to the iPhone.
Interface: harsh colors, sharp geometrics, poor graphical enhancements, Windows-esque aesthetics.
About that last one. There might be an Android app with identical functionality to an iPhone app, but it's how that functionality is presented to you that makes the difference. See, the App Store has quality control.
citizenzen
Mar 27, 06:54 PM
Some quotes from Nicolosi ...
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
Full of Win
Apr 12, 10:18 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:32 PM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I agree for the most part, but there is no conroe with 800MHz FSB, and the only core 2 desktop processor with it will be a single variant of Allendale at 1.6GHz. If it gets Core 2, iMac will see at least 1066MHz FSB.
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I agree for the most part, but there is no conroe with 800MHz FSB, and the only core 2 desktop processor with it will be a single variant of Allendale at 1.6GHz. If it gets Core 2, iMac will see at least 1066MHz FSB.
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:12 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
balamw
Apr 6, 03:21 PM
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:48 PM
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
citizenzen
Mar 14, 07:34 PM
The equation has to be considered in its entirety.
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
takao
Mar 15, 11:25 AM
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
p0intblank
Sep 20, 08:01 AM
So it does include a hard drive? Very nice! I was already planning on purchasing an "iTV", but this just makes it sound that much cooler. :D
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
The tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
Then why don't they show studies that compare Samsung versus LG versus Motorola smart phone hardware sales? Why are they constantly talking about the "Android" share?
Then why don't they show studies that compare Samsung versus LG versus Motorola smart phone hardware sales? Why are they constantly talking about the "Android" share?
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
it's really most fascinating...thank you
some of us hardware side IT people often make fun of the software IT people and it is often because of the introverted way most of them act or their lack of knowledge of the hardware side of things
but what's interesting is that the hardware side techies like network engineers and desktop techs would not have anything to implement and maintain if it wasn't for those coders who make it all possible
i always hear a lot about the hardware side of apple's products and the praise they get when things are done right, but i rarely hear about the heroes in the background, the developers who make it all run smoothly
of all the products apple has ever made, the mac operating systems is what really makes a mac a mac:D
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
it's really most fascinating...thank you
some of us hardware side IT people often make fun of the software IT people and it is often because of the introverted way most of them act or their lack of knowledge of the hardware side of things
but what's interesting is that the hardware side techies like network engineers and desktop techs would not have anything to implement and maintain if it wasn't for those coders who make it all possible
i always hear a lot about the hardware side of apple's products and the praise they get when things are done right, but i rarely hear about the heroes in the background, the developers who make it all run smoothly
of all the products apple has ever made, the mac operating systems is what really makes a mac a mac:D
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:58 PM
that's prolly why sj goes ballistic when any reporter mentions anything to that effect...it may be true or ...maybe... apple and steve jobs may be with motorola 100% percent and hate the "ibm talk" because of how it undermines the high end computing relationship they have now
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
HiRez
Sep 26, 03:17 PM
Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :DYou're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).