Apple OC
Apr 27, 09:19 PM
That's not the point. The point. The point is that even before anyone discovered microbes, microbes already existed. You're welcome to insist that there's no God. But maybe you insist that there is none because although there's evidence for theism, you doubt that it is evidence for it. I'm sure many atheistic scientists who dismiss theism a priori because they believe that if God exists, His existence would force them to revise many of their scientific assumptions. I forget the title of the television program I watched, where the host asked a neuroscientist what she thought about near-death experiences. She didn't want to consider potential evidence for an afterlife because an afterlife would disprove too many physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind.
I am not clear on the evidence you refer to ... I am looking for solid evidence ... please link some if you can :cool:
I am not clear on the evidence you refer to ... I am looking for solid evidence ... please link some if you can :cool:
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
killr_b
Jul 12, 04:57 PM
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
And why are you here?????
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
And why are you here?????
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
dgbowers
Apr 5, 09:23 PM
Things I miss from Windows:
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
1. As far as the whole shift thing, it works the exact same way.
2. Dragging your Applications folder to the right hand side of the Dock as a stack shows every single application you have installed on the computer, just like the Start Menu.
3. Themeing is a bit more difficult, but you can use things like Geektool (http://projects.tynsoe.org/en/geektool/) and Liteicon (http://www.freemacsoft.net/LiteIcon/) and DockLibrary (http://www.dativestudios.com/docklibrary/), just to name a few things. You just have to do some googling to find more themeing stuff.
4. Quitting applications. CMD+Q. Easy.
5. I haven't figured out a fix for the maximising. That is my only complaint, but they're gonna change it in OS X Lion.
6. Add/Remove Programs - an application called AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/AppCleaner/)
I hope that cleared up all the issues you had... If you have any more, lay 'em on me!
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
1. As far as the whole shift thing, it works the exact same way.
2. Dragging your Applications folder to the right hand side of the Dock as a stack shows every single application you have installed on the computer, just like the Start Menu.
3. Themeing is a bit more difficult, but you can use things like Geektool (http://projects.tynsoe.org/en/geektool/) and Liteicon (http://www.freemacsoft.net/LiteIcon/) and DockLibrary (http://www.dativestudios.com/docklibrary/), just to name a few things. You just have to do some googling to find more themeing stuff.
4. Quitting applications. CMD+Q. Easy.
5. I haven't figured out a fix for the maximising. That is my only complaint, but they're gonna change it in OS X Lion.
6. Add/Remove Programs - an application called AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/AppCleaner/)
I hope that cleared up all the issues you had... If you have any more, lay 'em on me!
skunk
Apr 23, 04:22 PM
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.Sorry, I misread your post... :o
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.Sorry, I misread your post... :o
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 11:18 PM
No I am not kidding. What option to buy a Quad? Clovertowns are Quads used in pairs to make 8-core OctoMacs not Quads. Clovertowns are scheduled to begin shipping in November. This is not news. It's been known for at least 3 months. Did you not see that thread?
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Multimedia
Jul 12, 10:29 AM
I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.I agree. It is a classic that can also run classic. And it is incredibly quiet - a feature seldom mentioned that many find valuable. In any event the G5 Quad will still be the second fastest Mac after this first round of Mac Pros ship. And I'd still rather have four G5 cores than two Core 2 Duo cores. Wouldn't you?
But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. :)
But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. :)
MACRUS
Apr 13, 01:43 AM
I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by your ignorance. but I don't. If you want to make a counter argument, you can start by being honest about what I was saying.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:47 PM
It's a homonym... :)
I like a joke. So thanks, skunk. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed. Whatever it was, it wasn't a punchline.
I like a joke. So thanks, skunk. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed. Whatever it was, it wasn't a punchline.
Designer Dale
Apr 20, 06:47 PM
I don't have an iPhone, but I do have an iPod Touch. My wife has an Android phone. I can't use her phone well but I feel I could use an iPhone with zero learning curve just because everything is so consistent across Apple mobile devices. That's what I like about Apple devices. No big surprises.
The manual for her phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Dale
The manual for her phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Dale
Huntn
Apr 23, 10:39 PM
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
izzle22
Sep 21, 01:33 PM
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
rhett7660
Mar 27, 11:44 AM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
gkarris
Apr 23, 05:22 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:
Demoman
Jul 12, 09:36 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
DanielCoffey
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
What's LGBT?
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
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.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
el-John-o
Nov 29, 08:15 PM
You know the ironic thing is, I live in a rural area and AT&T is flawless. People talk about dropped calls and I'm like "what's that". Oh and the "hold it this way" I dare someone to drop a call on my iPhone, I'll give you a dollar. No buildings, time machines, etc. to screw up the signal. The flipside, is that AT&T is my only option. Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile do not work AT ALL out here, as in 0 bars no signal until you drive 30 miles or so in any direction.
Interestingly enough, we had 3G out here before the nearby populated cities did, I guess AT&T knew an aircard was the best possible internet solution (back when it was unlimited), because the only other options are dial up and -shudders- Sattelite. In fact, I get 5 megs down and 1 meg up on 3G.
Nowadays I've moved into 'town', a small town that actually has Charter Cable internet. Still rural enough though to have excellent service.
I went to Chicago not too long ago though, thought I was gonna chuck that stupid phone. Couldn't have a conversation to save my life. My buddy who has an iPhone at the time (I was using my Samsung Epix) was experiencing similar problems BUT it was much better than mine.
-John
Interestingly enough, we had 3G out here before the nearby populated cities did, I guess AT&T knew an aircard was the best possible internet solution (back when it was unlimited), because the only other options are dial up and -shudders- Sattelite. In fact, I get 5 megs down and 1 meg up on 3G.
Nowadays I've moved into 'town', a small town that actually has Charter Cable internet. Still rural enough though to have excellent service.
I went to Chicago not too long ago though, thought I was gonna chuck that stupid phone. Couldn't have a conversation to save my life. My buddy who has an iPhone at the time (I was using my Samsung Epix) was experiencing similar problems BUT it was much better than mine.
-John
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 02:21 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
Pants
Oct 9, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
ahhhh...so to get performance from the damned thing, I have to write arcane altivec code yes? well, sorry, I and many like me, neither have the time nor the patience to hand wring performance like this. Jeez, the days of hand optimising code are thankfully long gone, except, it seems with a g4. And we have to of course assume that even this mythical 18 million flops is based on the assumption that we can get the altivec unit supplied with data? hmm... This is not acceptable - spec fp biased? well, yeah, because it doesnt justify your end argument - the fact that most other companies are 'happy' to stand by it is merely justification for its 'biased' nature yeah?
hmm.....
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
ahhhh...so to get performance from the damned thing, I have to write arcane altivec code yes? well, sorry, I and many like me, neither have the time nor the patience to hand wring performance like this. Jeez, the days of hand optimising code are thankfully long gone, except, it seems with a g4. And we have to of course assume that even this mythical 18 million flops is based on the assumption that we can get the altivec unit supplied with data? hmm... This is not acceptable - spec fp biased? well, yeah, because it doesnt justify your end argument - the fact that most other companies are 'happy' to stand by it is merely justification for its 'biased' nature yeah?
hmm.....
DeathChill
Apr 21, 07:53 AM
Ouch, it must really have hurt Apple that Android *smartphones* outsold all Apple iOS *devices* worldwide in Q1 (40 million Android smartphones compared to 32 million iOS devices). So they now are making again strange comparisons that only cover *one* market and *phones* vs. *devices.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.