Gelfin
Mar 13, 04:39 PM
One word.
Battery.
This word isn't really compatible with your argument that the reason we must eschew nuclear energy is that mining the necessary minerals destroys the environment.
Battery.
This word isn't really compatible with your argument that the reason we must eschew nuclear energy is that mining the necessary minerals destroys the environment.
Lennholm
May 2, 02:03 PM
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 01:42 PM
Roscoe Wind Farm, which is the largest wind farm in the world, provides only 781.5 MW of power while Fukushima I for example, provides 4.7 GW (over six times as much). That wind farm takes 400km^2 so a wind farm that could replace the Fukushima I would take 2400km^2.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
Hence why I said in 'larger part' and not 'exclusively'.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
Hence why I said in 'larger part' and not 'exclusively'.
milo
Apr 13, 11:13 AM
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them.
Based on what? An assumption that Color is gone, based on...what?
But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie.
Beyond the interface, how specifically is it a step down? What features have been removed?
...especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
And is there any reason to believe they are getting rid of them, beyond jumping to conclusions?
I AM a full time film editor and I'm very disappointed by the imovie-esque move. There were a slew of features that REAL editors have been asking for for YEARS (better media management, better multi-user shared projects, and (FOR GOD'S SAKE) better trimming ability. Apple said "nah, f that" and just made iMovie with many of FCP's pro features.
From today's announcement, how do you know none of those new features are in there?
Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
I'd be surprised to see Logic's 40 gigs of download on the app store, but who knows. How big was the last version of FCS?
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
Printed manuals? Seriously? What do you do, sit and read manuals on the toilet? Digital manuals are just as "real" and arguably better since it's easy to do text searches and find what you need quicker.
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
From what I hear, not likely at all. At least if STP is updated along with FCP I hope it's available somehow to Logic users.
Based on what? An assumption that Color is gone, based on...what?
But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie.
Beyond the interface, how specifically is it a step down? What features have been removed?
...especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
And is there any reason to believe they are getting rid of them, beyond jumping to conclusions?
I AM a full time film editor and I'm very disappointed by the imovie-esque move. There were a slew of features that REAL editors have been asking for for YEARS (better media management, better multi-user shared projects, and (FOR GOD'S SAKE) better trimming ability. Apple said "nah, f that" and just made iMovie with many of FCP's pro features.
From today's announcement, how do you know none of those new features are in there?
Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
I'd be surprised to see Logic's 40 gigs of download on the app store, but who knows. How big was the last version of FCS?
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
Printed manuals? Seriously? What do you do, sit and read manuals on the toilet? Digital manuals are just as "real" and arguably better since it's easy to do text searches and find what you need quicker.
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
From what I hear, not likely at all. At least if STP is updated along with FCP I hope it's available somehow to Logic users.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
wkhahn
Sep 22, 09:11 AM
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Raytard is not a "Kitchen Fox". For that, just watch Giada.
-Clive
Raytard is not a "Kitchen Fox". For that, just watch Giada.
jabi
Sep 20, 11:50 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
Given the form factor, I believe this is designed to sit on top of a Mac mini to gain recording functionality. Apple has no interest in taking away the computer from the equation. They see the Mac as the hub of your digital lifestyle. So, I predict we will see a "Media Center" version of Mac OS X that is designed to go with a specialized version of a Mac mini suited for recording TV, iTunes integration etc. that sits under the iTV.
Given the form factor, I believe this is designed to sit on top of a Mac mini to gain recording functionality. Apple has no interest in taking away the computer from the equation. They see the Mac as the hub of your digital lifestyle. So, I predict we will see a "Media Center" version of Mac OS X that is designed to go with a specialized version of a Mac mini suited for recording TV, iTunes integration etc. that sits under the iTV.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 11:57 PM
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, the would blind me by my 35th birthday. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
2000 Mercury Sable LS Premium
2000 Mercury Sable LS
2000 Mercury Sable LS Premium
2000 Mercury Sable Medium
2000 Mercury Sable Ls Premium
2000 Mercury Sable Ls Premium
2000 Mercury Sable Ls Premium
2000 Mercury Sable Ls
2004 Mercury Sable Ls Premium
2000 Mercury Sable Ls Premium
2000 Mercury Sable LS Premium
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, the would blind me by my 35th birthday. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
dmelgar
Jul 8, 12:01 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
Ino
Sep 20, 01:57 AM
It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod.
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/picture1jq2.png
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/picture1jq2.png
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 09:51 PM
Just passing through... an interesting test would be finding the determinants of large matricies of floats and ints. And I mean finding them by the straightforward stupid computation method, none of the simplification stuff.
Reasons:
1) Too large for all data to be in registers but easily small enough to fit in L1.
2) Takes a long time for surprisingly small matricies (20x20 is a huge number of calculations).
3) Stresses multiples and adds.
4) No massive-yet-trivial compiler simplifications, even for int.
5) The result has meaning.
Reasons:
1) Too large for all data to be in registers but easily small enough to fit in L1.
2) Takes a long time for surprisingly small matricies (20x20 is a huge number of calculations).
3) Stresses multiples and adds.
4) No massive-yet-trivial compiler simplifications, even for int.
5) The result has meaning.
moderately
Apr 28, 10:12 AM
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
phalseHUD
Apr 21, 04:38 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
I've browsed these forums for a while and used to post under a different name until I started work for a certain company which shall remain nameless! But this has to be one of the most pathetic comments I've ever read on here.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
I've browsed these forums for a while and used to post under a different name until I started work for a certain company which shall remain nameless! But this has to be one of the most pathetic comments I've ever read on here.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 04:35 PM
No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 10:45 AM
I just switched. Like, a week ago.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
Hunabku
Apr 20, 06:28 PM
I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:23 PM
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
rasmasyean
Apr 23, 02:11 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
blackcrayon
May 2, 10:38 AM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
iAlan
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
I guess time will tell, but Apple needs to get something kickass out the door around WWDC. I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:51 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
