ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:04 PM
Dissection time!
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
guitar wallpapers. wallpaper
Music, Guitar Wallpapers
ELECTRIC GUITAR live wallpaper
Related Guitar Wallpaper
Music - Guitar Wallpaper
guitar wallpaper. guitar
Guitar Wallpaper
iPhone wallpaper gallery Vol.1
PREVIEW this Wallpaper
cartoon guitar Wallpaper
Guitar Wallpapers
blue guitar wallpaper 26182406
Wallpapers · 3D/Abstract
Related Guitar Wallpaper
Free Guitar Wallpapers - Enjoy
Guitar Hero Boy Wallpaper
Broken Guitar Wallpaper
electric guitar wallpapers.
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Analog Kid
Oct 26, 01:34 AM
I can't think of what I'd possibly need that kind of power for here at home, but just the extravagance of having 8 CPUs ticking away is tempting in itself.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:56 AM
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
rxse7en
Oct 12, 06:19 PM
I went ahead and ordered the 24" LCD from Dell. Pretty cool that they use PayPal--I try to pay with everything with cash. Anyway, I have that coupon code for the 30", if anyone wants it just PM me.
B
B
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
Gelfin
Mar 26, 03:31 PM
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 13, 09:43 AM
[SIZE=1]
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAHHAHAA!
OMG I almost fell out of my chair cracking up when I saw this last statement. That just goes to show just how much you DON'T know. IT professional don't feel threatened at all by Apple. Its just the opposite. After Apple dropped the Xserve and delivered us a Macbook Pro Early 2011 that requires its own special build of OSX most IT professionals are rethinking the Apple strategy all together. I know here and a lot of places are moving away from XServes into the Windows world. If you want to see real Mac IT professionals check out the JAMF Casper User Forum. Some of the brightest Mac admins in world. We are all pretty much in the same boat. Apple is making our jobs harder and making it harder for us to justify getting Macs for our customers. Thank God for a company like JAMF because Apple hasn't given any of its IT supporters tools to support the environment. Unlike lets say... Microsoft. :rolleyes: How great is it when a VP comes up to you and says we need 50 copies of X software but we can only get it from the AppStore. Apple doesn't care about the IT world or its corp. user base.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAHHAHAA!
OMG I almost fell out of my chair cracking up when I saw this last statement. That just goes to show just how much you DON'T know. IT professional don't feel threatened at all by Apple. Its just the opposite. After Apple dropped the Xserve and delivered us a Macbook Pro Early 2011 that requires its own special build of OSX most IT professionals are rethinking the Apple strategy all together. I know here and a lot of places are moving away from XServes into the Windows world. If you want to see real Mac IT professionals check out the JAMF Casper User Forum. Some of the brightest Mac admins in world. We are all pretty much in the same boat. Apple is making our jobs harder and making it harder for us to justify getting Macs for our customers. Thank God for a company like JAMF because Apple hasn't given any of its IT supporters tools to support the environment. Unlike lets say... Microsoft. :rolleyes: How great is it when a VP comes up to you and says we need 50 copies of X software but we can only get it from the AppStore. Apple doesn't care about the IT world or its corp. user base.
MacinDoc
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
The reason Apple "performs poorly" on recycling compared to Dell is that Apple computers, on average, remain in use approximately twice as long as Dell computers. Instead of being recycled, they are still being used. Apple does, after all, have a free recycling program. And there is no way that making computers that are replaced more frequently is more environmentally friendly.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
jefhatfield
Oct 9, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
True that macs are overpriced but you do gain the operating system which kicks micrsoft xp sh*tless.
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
True that macs are overpriced but you do gain the operating system which kicks micrsoft xp sh*tless.
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
LightSpeed1
Apr 22, 12:48 AM
It was only a matter of time.
xStep
Apr 13, 03:40 AM
You can find some (not great) video of the event here: http://www.youtube.com/user/selfsponsored05
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:44 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
XjeffX
May 5, 04:54 PM
I would be thrilled if only 4.5% of my calls were dropped. While I don't use talk on the phone much, nearly 50% of my calls end up dropping at some point.
Mooey
Apr 9, 03:42 AM
The delusion is this thread is hilarious. I'm seeing little casual gamers saying that Nintendo should be bought out, that Sony and Microsoft are doomed because their consoles are cheap on eBay because of device malfunctions (like Apple computers / handhelds don't?), and people claiming that touchscreens are going to replace the buttons for controllers sooner or later.
Your opinions are nice, but you're a casual gamer. The closet thing you've probably touched as far as hardcore gaming goes is Plants vs Zombies.
Until I start seeing games like Uncharted 3, God of War, Halo, Fallout, etc. on an iOS device, you guys can continue keeping me entertained.
Your opinions are nice, but you're a casual gamer. The closet thing you've probably touched as far as hardcore gaming goes is Plants vs Zombies.
Until I start seeing games like Uncharted 3, God of War, Halo, Fallout, etc. on an iOS device, you guys can continue keeping me entertained.
ATD
Nov 2, 01:25 AM
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
I'm not sure how the app (Maya) itself scales but the rendering in Mental Ray scales perfectly. 4 cpus render twice as fast as 2, 6 cpus render 3 times as fast as 2. That's if all the cpus are the same of course.
Is that what you were asking?
I'm not sure how the app (Maya) itself scales but the rendering in Mental Ray scales perfectly. 4 cpus render twice as fast as 2, 6 cpus render 3 times as fast as 2. That's if all the cpus are the same of course.
Is that what you were asking?
camomac
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
ahhh, why didn't they have dual optical slots in the current G5's..
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:00 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
goobot
May 5, 05:38 PM
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:50 PM
But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
Not after the 2007 US regulations go into effect. Even with current regulations, though, diesel has less particulate matter per mile traveled than pump gasoline, if you factor in the increased efficiency.
How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?
I should have clarified, sorry. I meant to say that E85 requires the same amount of oil-based energy to create as the gas refining process.
In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.
True. But the assumption of energy innovation is a mistake, given the failure of oil-alternatives over the past 100+ years. This does not mean that looking for alternatives is fruitless (the opposite is true), but giving up on fossil fuels before an alternative is found is a gross error.
Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.
God forbid that someone gets richer by ensuring that my family doesn't die.
EDIT: Can I just clarify that it's nice to discuss these things without suggesting that Greenpeace "F Off" or that Apple is causing World Destruction?
Not after the 2007 US regulations go into effect. Even with current regulations, though, diesel has less particulate matter per mile traveled than pump gasoline, if you factor in the increased efficiency.
How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?
I should have clarified, sorry. I meant to say that E85 requires the same amount of oil-based energy to create as the gas refining process.
In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.
True. But the assumption of energy innovation is a mistake, given the failure of oil-alternatives over the past 100+ years. This does not mean that looking for alternatives is fruitless (the opposite is true), but giving up on fossil fuels before an alternative is found is a gross error.
Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.
God forbid that someone gets richer by ensuring that my family doesn't die.
EDIT: Can I just clarify that it's nice to discuss these things without suggesting that Greenpeace "F Off" or that Apple is causing World Destruction?
mdriftmeyer
Apr 12, 11:19 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Grow some perspective.
Queso
Oct 26, 09:56 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)