fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
*LTD*
Apr 9, 12:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:48 PM
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
TuckBodi
May 18, 02:03 PM
Please note that non of the supposed "BETTER" carriers have the iphone congesting there network with psychotic amounts of data congestion especially in the larger cities like New York this is such a ******** biased statement and study that AT&T is having excessive dropped calls. You know I hope Verizon LLC does end up getting the iphone so they too can see exactly that the iphone is the cause of said congestion and dropped calls, and if you wanna poll the typical AT&T customer that doesn't use a iphone they don't see this issue. Its the fact that Apple who has been developing phones for 3 years now....3....people companies like Motorola, Nokia, LG, and others including HTC have been at this 10 or more years they know how to make a phone. 90 percent of the AT&T supposed dropped calls are from people using the Iphone, its not a AT&T thing as much as it is that apple has yet to perfect making phones like Motorola and Nokia who have been in the business since the beginning of cellphone technology have. So before you go spouting off that AT&T is a horrible provider maybe you should do some research into what type of handset most of these people are using when they have these supposed "EXCESSIVE" dropped calls and I bet most of them will answer Iphone.
Hey there Seth! Good one but isn't this excuse a few issues old? The latest you guys were blaming was my fridge (and before that my microwave and before that my trees and before that me and then finally Apple). You're slowin' down there buddy!
Hey there Seth! Good one but isn't this excuse a few issues old? The latest you guys were blaming was my fridge (and before that my microwave and before that my trees and before that me and then finally Apple). You're slowin' down there buddy!
cdd543
May 6, 10:37 AM
Ultimately, yes - that's probably the only realistic solution AT&T has, and they *are* adding new cell towers all the time. I got SMS messages a couple of times announcing new ones they put online in my city, over the last year or so.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
This isn't true..both ATT and Verizon use the cellular 850 frequency in many places. The 1900 pcs band doesn't carry as far, but if tower or antenna placement is closer then it shouldn't matter.
Regardless ATT still drops a lot of calls. My wife is in Vegas and she has had about 10 dropped calls..all while showing a full 3g signal on her iphone.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
This isn't true..both ATT and Verizon use the cellular 850 frequency in many places. The 1900 pcs band doesn't carry as far, but if tower or antenna placement is closer then it shouldn't matter.
Regardless ATT still drops a lot of calls. My wife is in Vegas and she has had about 10 dropped calls..all while showing a full 3g signal on her iphone.
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:27 PM
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?
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Benjy91
Mar 25, 11:08 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
r0k
Apr 11, 09:41 AM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
Piggie
Apr 28, 09:44 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
Does this thing have an Ethernet port, and it apparently does. I'd rather not rely on wireless. Right now I have a VGA cable from my iMac to my TV, so I'd gain something by replacing it with a simple CAT5.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 10:10 AM
And, for many in that 1%, it's never going to stop until they learn to deal with it -- you can stop bullying in schools, but once you get out in the real world it becomes a much more difficult thing. You can't shield people from hate / fear / dislike or being singled out for being different. You can try to educate, you can try to get people to stop, but at the end of the day there will always be bullies and there will always be people being picked on.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
yeah you do not know what you are talking about and you can not be MORE DEAD WRONG.
I was among that 1% who was picked on. Things get better after high school and easier. Not harder. Reason why is in college you choose a major and often times that major is going to have a lot more people who are a lot like you and have similar interested. On top of that there are many more groups so to speak that you can find and line up with. Helps finding a small group of friends. Add to that fact that people generally do not pick on people as much as adults.
hit the real world you also find your own voice and own friends. You learn that HS is not a big deal and that picking on stuff not as big of a deal. Problem is making it there and it has long term effects. I still suffer with depression. I still have the mental and emotional scares of my school years that would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
But I will also state that the amount of picking on bulling I have had to put up with in the REAL WORLD (yes real job) is very little and almost always in jest. The amount that is not is so minor I can let it roll off. It never builds up and I am allowed time to recover from any I do get thrown at me. It is not day in and day out.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
yeah you do not know what you are talking about and you can not be MORE DEAD WRONG.
I was among that 1% who was picked on. Things get better after high school and easier. Not harder. Reason why is in college you choose a major and often times that major is going to have a lot more people who are a lot like you and have similar interested. On top of that there are many more groups so to speak that you can find and line up with. Helps finding a small group of friends. Add to that fact that people generally do not pick on people as much as adults.
hit the real world you also find your own voice and own friends. You learn that HS is not a big deal and that picking on stuff not as big of a deal. Problem is making it there and it has long term effects. I still suffer with depression. I still have the mental and emotional scares of my school years that would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
But I will also state that the amount of picking on bulling I have had to put up with in the REAL WORLD (yes real job) is very little and almost always in jest. The amount that is not is so minor I can let it roll off. It never builds up and I am allowed time to recover from any I do get thrown at me. It is not day in and day out.
munkery
May 2, 08:18 PM
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
hondaboy945
Sep 20, 12:57 AM
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
chrono1081
Apr 5, 10:16 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
For the applications, they are all right at your fingertips at the dock or if you want them hidden and want to access them at an instant you can put them in a stack. Think of a stack like the windows start menu, but faster (and it doesn't have to be programs it can be anything).
As for alt+tab and copy and paste people are making it out to be an issue and its not. Use command + tab instead of alt tab, and command + c for copy, and command + v for paste. Its different at first but then you get use to it. I now like command better than control since command is next to the spacebar and is easier to reach.
Also, its perfectly easy to go up file structure levels in Finder, just customize your tool bar (see image)
Anyway I switched from Windows to Mac 3 years ago (because Vista pre service pack 1 couldn't handle large file transfers) and haven't looked back. It was the best move I made (and I fix Windows desktops and servers for a living). Now I can't stand using Windows anymore. I'm much more productive on a Mac.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
For the applications, they are all right at your fingertips at the dock or if you want them hidden and want to access them at an instant you can put them in a stack. Think of a stack like the windows start menu, but faster (and it doesn't have to be programs it can be anything).
As for alt+tab and copy and paste people are making it out to be an issue and its not. Use command + tab instead of alt tab, and command + c for copy, and command + v for paste. Its different at first but then you get use to it. I now like command better than control since command is next to the spacebar and is easier to reach.
Also, its perfectly easy to go up file structure levels in Finder, just customize your tool bar (see image)
Anyway I switched from Windows to Mac 3 years ago (because Vista pre service pack 1 couldn't handle large file transfers) and haven't looked back. It was the best move I made (and I fix Windows desktops and servers for a living). Now I can't stand using Windows anymore. I'm much more productive on a Mac.
yg17
Mar 18, 03:02 PM
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
wovel
Apr 28, 09:03 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
It can count as a computer, net books do..
It can count as a computer, net books do..
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:35 PM
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming?
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
NT1440
Mar 16, 10:58 AM
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
Drill baby, drill!
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 11:49 AM
AT&T can do whatever they want to.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
moose.boy
Aug 29, 02:00 PM
How the hell can nokia be one of the top companies - here in the UK, the phones it makes are seen as throw-away. If you get the average pay as you go user upgrading every 9 months or so, the amount of waste produced is ridiculous.
Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.
Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.
slu
Oct 7, 02:55 PM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
Stella
Aug 29, 01:29 PM
There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
No comments:
Post a Comment