stcanard
Mar 18, 03:52 PM
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Apple understands this. Its worked very well with the software sales (after all there is no copy protection on their consumer apps). It's working with song sales. All you have to do is hit the right price / feature point.
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Apple understands this. Its worked very well with the software sales (after all there is no copy protection on their consumer apps). It's working with song sales. All you have to do is hit the right price / feature point.
fewture
Jul 12, 01:34 PM
Jiggy2g - yes its all very 'disturbing'... whatever! calm down dude, the geekness is just too much (whoa man did you see that conroe at 4ghz!!)...
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
chrismacguy
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Theres also a lovely massive gaping hole in the Catholic "Invisible God who must exist because 1st Century Nomads who couldn't work out keeping toilet and food separate was a smart idea said he did" view of things:
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:20 AM
A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years.
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
Gurutech
Jul 12, 01:12 PM
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
Piggie
Apr 28, 06:20 PM
And I thought the 14.4 modems were slow!
Prestel Pages were 1K each page, so not too bad to come down the phone line at 1200 and your key presses were sent back at 75.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Viewdata_Graphics_1.jpg
http://www.neuralmap.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prestel_micronet.gif
Prestel Pages were 1K each page, so not too bad to come down the phone line at 1200 and your key presses were sent back at 75.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Viewdata_Graphics_1.jpg
http://www.neuralmap.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prestel_micronet.gif
orak
Oct 6, 09:50 AM
What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?
The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?
The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)
dethmaShine
May 2, 05:00 PM
What are you even talking about?
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:35 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
chrono1081
May 2, 11:52 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:41 PM
CaoCao, just admit you lost this argument and move on.
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
mac jones
Mar 12, 10:35 PM
Well it appears thing have gotten worse. I guess now all we can do is wait and see what can be done. I have the greatest confidence in the Japanese ability to deal with this, and the international communities contributions.
Slurpy2k8
Apr 9, 03:48 AM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
I really hope you're joking. There's quite a few games on the appstore with comparable graphics, yet also with great gameplay to boot- unlike the tech demo that infinityblade is.
I really hope you're joking. There's quite a few games on the appstore with comparable graphics, yet also with great gameplay to boot- unlike the tech demo that infinityblade is.
ciTiger
Apr 28, 07:57 AM
Growth 187.9 %... LOL
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
chrono1081
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
I honestly have no idea how you have the job that you do, because you fail tremendously in this aspect.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
vincenz
Mar 13, 12:35 PM
Best wishes to the Japanese people. Hope they can get over this tragedy soon.
the Rebel
Mar 20, 10:12 PM
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:18 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
aricher
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
janstett
Sep 12, 05:46 PM
Ah, now this is what I've been waiting for: the Airport Express for video, plus a little bit more. If it were shipping today, I'd high-tail it to the Apple Store and buy one. But given a few months to think about the $299 price tag, we shall see if that feeling holds up.
These types of devices have existed for years (UPnP Digital Media Adapters). I wonder if this will be UPnP compatible, probably not -- Rendevous pretty much a UPnP alternative.
These types of devices have existed for years (UPnP Digital Media Adapters). I wonder if this will be UPnP compatible, probably not -- Rendevous pretty much a UPnP alternative.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment