WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:03 PM
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:23 PM
Why are so many of these posts so vehemently anti-Greenpeace? What have they done, or alleged to have done, that I've missed?
Gelfin
Mar 26, 12:59 AM
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
Well now, I don't think being an atheist actually entails anything. I certainly don't do anything specific related to it, but I know what you mean :).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
I actually like being questioned. More on my scientific ideas, but religious ones too. For me, it is the best way to learn.
Others around me aren't this way. We'll be having what I think is an intellectual discussion, and the next moment my friend's shouting at me. It's weird to think about holding any ideal sacred(a
Though it wouldn't have been when I was a fundamentalist :eek:).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
I actually like being questioned. More on my scientific ideas, but religious ones too. For me, it is the best way to learn.
Others around me aren't this way. We'll be having what I think is an intellectual discussion, and the next moment my friend's shouting at me. It's weird to think about holding any ideal sacred(a
Though it wouldn't have been when I was a fundamentalist :eek:).
stcanard
Mar 18, 12:13 PM
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
stcanard
Mar 18, 08:41 PM
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
MacinDoc
Aug 29, 03:07 PM
For those who don't know what the Precautionary Principle, it is a belief that essentially states that everything should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise. Therefore, it applies mostly to innovators and producers of new products that have not been made before. Apple, being an innovative company, introduces new technologies. Dell, on the other hand, copies what others have done. So, the only way that Apple could adhere as closely to the Precautionary Principle as Dell would be to become another Dell, and to only copy what other manufacturers were already making. So, including this principle in Greenpeace's analysis of the environmental friendliness of tech firms is laughable at best, conspiratorial at worst.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
Lennholm
May 2, 04:08 PM
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Steve121178
Apr 28, 07:45 AM
Guessing 2012 see Apple shift up again? Redesigned MacBook Pro's, retina display iPad 3..
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
~loserman~
Mar 20, 06:28 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 06:44 AM
...speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use.
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 06:44 AM
...speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use.
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
FF_productions
Jul 11, 09:54 PM
I cannot wait!!!
Peace
Sep 12, 05:02 PM
Engadget has posted pics :
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/apple-to-release-itv-video-streaming-box-in-2007/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/hands-on-with-the-apple-itv-prototype/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/apple-to-release-itv-video-streaming-box-in-2007/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/hands-on-with-the-apple-itv-prototype/
Macaddicttt
Mar 18, 02:35 PM
Anyone care to make this interesting? I'm taking all bets. How long until Apple fixes the problem?
jaduffy108
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
### imo, a "reality" of Apple's choosing. They should be a leader in this area! No excuses. Period. Dell? that's embarassing.
### imo, a "reality" of Apple's choosing. They should be a leader in this area! No excuses. Period. Dell? that's embarassing.
Diavilo1
Sep 12, 03:21 PM
Definately has piqued my interest. I may have missed this but does it have a TV Tuner?
gerrycurl
Jul 11, 11:31 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
Apple OC
Mar 13, 11:46 AM
with all hope that things stay under control in Japan ... Nuclear power is still the way of the future.
we can learn from this disaster ... for instance future cooling generators need to be built where failure is not an option.
Things will be learned and we will be better moving forward.
we can learn from this disaster ... for instance future cooling generators need to be built where failure is not an option.
Things will be learned and we will be better moving forward.
balamw
Apr 10, 03:15 PM
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
Shivetya
Apr 28, 12:29 PM
Its not like the market for $1000+ computers is inexhaustible. They had to throw in tablets while they can to maintain market position because once the cheap tablets start coming out (and they will, it took a while for notebooks to get cheap and look at where they are now).
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:15 PM
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.
millerb7
May 2, 10:46 AM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
Meh... if you're stupid enough to have open safe files checked.
Meh... if you're stupid enough to have open safe files checked.
No comments:
Post a Comment