bigwig
Oct 26, 12:58 AM
Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 08:06 AM
The real facts are its only a report. The bottom line is Apple is stronger than ever and doing a great job.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
This is not really true. You need to know the software to make it do what you want to do. You don't need to be an expert certified user, but you need to know your way around.
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
beaster
Sep 12, 06:49 PM
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
DVD = 480i, not 480p.
-Sean
DVD = 480i, not 480p.
-Sean
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:36 PM
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
gugy
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
I think it's a great device.
The big question is about if the wireless transmission is good enough.
I had Airtunes and it was horrible using it from 40 feet from my computer to my living room. I don't have brick walls.
I guess it's safe now to buy Elgato use as PVR and transmit the show wirelessly to ITV hookup up to my TV.
That's sweet!:)
The big question is about if the wireless transmission is good enough.
I had Airtunes and it was horrible using it from 40 feet from my computer to my living room. I don't have brick walls.
I guess it's safe now to buy Elgato use as PVR and transmit the show wirelessly to ITV hookup up to my TV.
That's sweet!:)
Macsavvytech
May 3, 04:48 PM
Hmmm.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
alex_ant
Oct 12, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
firestarter
Mar 13, 01:21 PM
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 07:07 AM
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
carfac
Sep 12, 06:06 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
cadillaccactus
Aug 29, 12:54 PM
I have been a devout mac user for a while now. I get wrapped up in the apple-is-always-right mindset plenty of the time. But greenpeace is a neutral third party evaluating a number of tech companies. While GP may hold companies to a high standard, and judge critically, there is no reason for us to assume that they rated one company in a spearate fashion.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
TheFink
Oct 10, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 07:36 AM
What exactly about "unlimited" don't people understand? Without limits.
actually there was a limit. single person. not tethering. anything else is in fact breaking the agreement.
actually there was a limit. single person. not tethering. anything else is in fact breaking the agreement.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 12:28 PM
I agree with WestonHarvey1. The lifestyle of the Catholic and that of a member of the LGBT community is not easily reconcilable, if at all. Then again, it's not reconconcilable with an ever increasing portion of the population so I feel the problem lies with the church, and not the community at large. Shame how such a noble project has been pulled OT by religion but it does tend to do sh:t like this.
xStep
Apr 13, 03:40 AM
You can find some (not great) video of the event here: http://www.youtube.com/user/selfsponsored05
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 04:14 PM
No, the basis of Christianity is the Old and New Testaments.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
~Shard~
Oct 28, 10:32 AM
I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. :cool:
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. :cool:
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:50 AM
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
el-John-o
Nov 29, 08:15 PM
You know the ironic thing is, I live in a rural area and AT&T is flawless. People talk about dropped calls and I'm like "what's that". Oh and the "hold it this way" I dare someone to drop a call on my iPhone, I'll give you a dollar. No buildings, time machines, etc. to screw up the signal. The flipside, is that AT&T is my only option. Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile do not work AT ALL out here, as in 0 bars no signal until you drive 30 miles or so in any direction.
Interestingly enough, we had 3G out here before the nearby populated cities did, I guess AT&T knew an aircard was the best possible internet solution (back when it was unlimited), because the only other options are dial up and -shudders- Sattelite. In fact, I get 5 megs down and 1 meg up on 3G.
Nowadays I've moved into 'town', a small town that actually has Charter Cable internet. Still rural enough though to have excellent service.
I went to Chicago not too long ago though, thought I was gonna chuck that stupid phone. Couldn't have a conversation to save my life. My buddy who has an iPhone at the time (I was using my Samsung Epix) was experiencing similar problems BUT it was much better than mine.
-John
Interestingly enough, we had 3G out here before the nearby populated cities did, I guess AT&T knew an aircard was the best possible internet solution (back when it was unlimited), because the only other options are dial up and -shudders- Sattelite. In fact, I get 5 megs down and 1 meg up on 3G.
Nowadays I've moved into 'town', a small town that actually has Charter Cable internet. Still rural enough though to have excellent service.
I went to Chicago not too long ago though, thought I was gonna chuck that stupid phone. Couldn't have a conversation to save my life. My buddy who has an iPhone at the time (I was using my Samsung Epix) was experiencing similar problems BUT it was much better than mine.
-John
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.
McGiord
Apr 23, 11:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYekoBuBYSY
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 01:08 PM
You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system.
By living in this country I am bound by its laws. Period, full stop. Why is protest only allowed if you make it public and go to jail? The most public display of protest I am aware of is the 50+% of people who do not vote in any election. You might think their protest is foolish, but by not participating in the sham they speak volumes for those who listen.
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of. It is like "terrorism", it is 100% dependent on what side of the argument you are on. The USA has directly killed far more people than these so-called terrorists. Many who are on the side of the USA do not see this. This does not make those who disagree with the USA supporters of "terror", it simply means they disagree with the logic - and laws - of the USA.
Breaking DRM is no different. If you agree with the laws you speak of how important it is to follow them. If you don't agree you justify your actions in a myriad of way. Everyone is subject to the "law" however just or unjust the law may be.
By living in this country I am bound by its laws. Period, full stop. Why is protest only allowed if you make it public and go to jail? The most public display of protest I am aware of is the 50+% of people who do not vote in any election. You might think their protest is foolish, but by not participating in the sham they speak volumes for those who listen.
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of. It is like "terrorism", it is 100% dependent on what side of the argument you are on. The USA has directly killed far more people than these so-called terrorists. Many who are on the side of the USA do not see this. This does not make those who disagree with the USA supporters of "terror", it simply means they disagree with the logic - and laws - of the USA.
Breaking DRM is no different. If you agree with the laws you speak of how important it is to follow them. If you don't agree you justify your actions in a myriad of way. Everyone is subject to the "law" however just or unjust the law may be.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
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.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
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.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
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.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).