ten-oak-druid
May 2, 12:37 PM
Ah the decennial malware is here early.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
The facts get distorted by deceptive TOS's from At&t and peoples own agendas.
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
chrono1081
May 2, 08:52 PM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:16 PM
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
Liquorpuki
Oct 7, 04:28 PM
2. Only one manufactor is going to sting. Android is announced already on 4 different companies phones (Motoral, HTC, Samsung,and Nokia) I have heard rumors of Sony being added to that list as well.
For those who like the iPhone, this works in our favor. With iPhone OS, there's only one hardware platform developers have to deal with. All they need to do for QC is make sure their apps work on the latest OS rev.
Since Android is a platform running on multiple handsets, devs SHOULD test their apps on multiple phones. Most won't because they don't have the resources to get their hands on every single phone out there. So software that runs fine on one phone won't run on others and might even brick them because of different hw configurations. It happened with Windows Mobile.
3. Apple very poor and single point app approval process is starting to a lot of problems. When Jail Break stores are kicking off it clearly people want more choices. Hell people Jail break just to get certain apps that apple will not approve or take to long to approve. Compared to google system where the app store is just one of many locations to buy apps.
I agree with the app approval being slow but I don't think people appreciate how streamlined the process of putting a 3rd party app on your iphone is. It's rare that an app will make your OS unstable, brick your phone, and make you restore factory settings just to get it running again.
Far as jailbreaking, to put it in perspective, look how bad Verizon cripples ALL their phones on release. Yea I have to hack the iphone to install maybe 5 choice apps I can't get otherwise, but at least my phone didn't have its GPS and bluetooth disabled, RAM cut in half, wi-fi disabled so I'd have to use 3g even though I'm at home, etc
For those who like the iPhone, this works in our favor. With iPhone OS, there's only one hardware platform developers have to deal with. All they need to do for QC is make sure their apps work on the latest OS rev.
Since Android is a platform running on multiple handsets, devs SHOULD test their apps on multiple phones. Most won't because they don't have the resources to get their hands on every single phone out there. So software that runs fine on one phone won't run on others and might even brick them because of different hw configurations. It happened with Windows Mobile.
3. Apple very poor and single point app approval process is starting to a lot of problems. When Jail Break stores are kicking off it clearly people want more choices. Hell people Jail break just to get certain apps that apple will not approve or take to long to approve. Compared to google system where the app store is just one of many locations to buy apps.
I agree with the app approval being slow but I don't think people appreciate how streamlined the process of putting a 3rd party app on your iphone is. It's rare that an app will make your OS unstable, brick your phone, and make you restore factory settings just to get it running again.
Far as jailbreaking, to put it in perspective, look how bad Verizon cripples ALL their phones on release. Yea I have to hack the iphone to install maybe 5 choice apps I can't get otherwise, but at least my phone didn't have its GPS and bluetooth disabled, RAM cut in half, wi-fi disabled so I'd have to use 3g even though I'm at home, etc
leomac08
Mar 11, 01:22 AM
Yeah that tsunami is massive. There were burning buildings floating on the surge as it rolled inland.
Not good at all.
Indeed, Tsunami of epic proportions
Saw an airport completed flooded, but no planes!!!!
My prayers go to Japan:(
Not good at all.
Indeed, Tsunami of epic proportions
Saw an airport completed flooded, but no planes!!!!
My prayers go to Japan:(
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Peterkro
Mar 13, 08:55 PM
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
I think you confuse cooperation with exploitation by paying those in the Sahara (which is Africa by the way) a fair price for their resource it's a win win situation,applying 19th century ideas to a 21st century problem isn't going to work.It would raise living standards in Saharan Africa to European levels very quickly.
I think you confuse cooperation with exploitation by paying those in the Sahara (which is Africa by the way) a fair price for their resource it's a win win situation,applying 19th century ideas to a 21st century problem isn't going to work.It would raise living standards in Saharan Africa to European levels very quickly.
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.
MacinDoc
Apr 13, 01:25 AM
I've been in IT for a while. "Professionals" are some of the most set in their ways people I have EVER met. I know guys who were annoyed when motherboards became available that let you adjust things like clock multipliers and such in the BIOS instead of having to use jumpers on the motherboard.
Most "professionals" aren't so much masters of their craft but people who understand how to use certain tools. If those tools become available to anyone the "professionals" feel threatened and lash out.
Mind you, while I love OS X, if the terminal was ever removed from the OS I'd cease using it. Once you know how to use a shell properly there's tons of stuff that's simply easier to do from there. I love ease, just so long as it's not at the cost of Pro grade functionality when I need it.
That's my point, though. Adding a graphic interface to OS X did nothing to reduce the power of the Terminal. As you say, as long as the choice is still available to use the underlying power, we should not object if ease of use is added on top of that. I think most video editors would want the video software equivalent of a DSLR, rather than the equivalent of a point-and-shoot camera. Ease of use for everyday things, but the power of manual controls when needed.
Most "professionals" aren't so much masters of their craft but people who understand how to use certain tools. If those tools become available to anyone the "professionals" feel threatened and lash out.
Mind you, while I love OS X, if the terminal was ever removed from the OS I'd cease using it. Once you know how to use a shell properly there's tons of stuff that's simply easier to do from there. I love ease, just so long as it's not at the cost of Pro grade functionality when I need it.
That's my point, though. Adding a graphic interface to OS X did nothing to reduce the power of the Terminal. As you say, as long as the choice is still available to use the underlying power, we should not object if ease of use is added on top of that. I think most video editors would want the video software equivalent of a DSLR, rather than the equivalent of a point-and-shoot camera. Ease of use for everyday things, but the power of manual controls when needed.
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:32 PM
Because it is the third longest example of drift on PRSI (for now) and since appleguy123 started that one, of course he wants it to continue.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
Anonymous Freak
Oct 4, 03:28 PM
Does anyone know how much power a Cloverton 2.33GHz will draw compared to the current Woodcrest 3GHz? I hope Apple's power supply is adequate for Cloverton, 4 SATA hard drives, 2 optical drives, and better PCIe graphics card.
Woodcrest 3.0 is rated at 80W per processor. Clovertown is claimed to be 'about the same.' Anandtech measured an early Clovertown sample at about 130W, though. Even at that, they had no issues in a Mac Pro.
It would have been silly of Apple to design a 'high end workstation' system without at least 100W of leeway in the power. I mean, they sell it with two optical drives, four hard drives, and up to four video cards. There *HAS* to be enough power in there.
Woodcrest 3.0 is rated at 80W per processor. Clovertown is claimed to be 'about the same.' Anandtech measured an early Clovertown sample at about 130W, though. Even at that, they had no issues in a Mac Pro.
It would have been silly of Apple to design a 'high end workstation' system without at least 100W of leeway in the power. I mean, they sell it with two optical drives, four hard drives, and up to four video cards. There *HAS* to be enough power in there.
leekohler
Mar 27, 11:12 AM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
macenforcer
Jul 12, 12:20 AM
Have fun!
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
Spectrum
Aug 29, 12:16 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
You mean just like unix operating systems have "so many" viruses and it's a completely open source environment? In fact OSX is based on BSD unix. LOL
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Lau
Aug 29, 04:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:17 AM
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
mac jones
Mar 12, 05:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:33 AM
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods?
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:28 AM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.