mikeschmeee
Apr 18, 09:11 PM
May I post a video along with some photos of a local S2K club that I was invited to their Dyno Day? The video is nothing special. Just a few pulls. Short video. I got tons of photos though :p
QuarterSwede
Jan 16, 10:45 PM
This may help you. It's basically a news scraper.
WizardRSS (http://www.wizardrss.com/)
WizardRSS (http://www.wizardrss.com/)
applehockey
Feb 9, 05:14 PM
Hmm... I have the former 1350 a month plan. :confused:
https://img.skitch.com/20110209-pw8huk5sptqhhkryxtruxwke5b.png (http://twitter.com/#!/ATT/status/35428287962554368)
My guess is that you will be covered and get the Unlimited Mobile to Any Mobile (just as the person above is on his family plan which is no longer offered).
Just wondering, are you paying more or less than the 900 Nation Plan ($59.99) for the 1350 plan which you are grandfathered in to?
https://img.skitch.com/20110209-pw8huk5sptqhhkryxtruxwke5b.png (http://twitter.com/#!/ATT/status/35428287962554368)
My guess is that you will be covered and get the Unlimited Mobile to Any Mobile (just as the person above is on his family plan which is no longer offered).
Just wondering, are you paying more or less than the 900 Nation Plan ($59.99) for the 1350 plan which you are grandfathered in to?
mscriv
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Worth quoting, given the back-and-forth that's gone on since this was originally posted.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
more...
Vivid.Inferno
Sep 2, 01:43 AM
Pretty sure this one was posted last month. I have no idea what the link for the original is so I'll attach it.
A Macbook Pro
May 4, 03:11 AM
I use Skype to talk to people who *gasp* use PC's. Is the ''Facetime HD'' camera as they're calling it better quality for Skype video calls then the one that was used previously? Thanks :)
more...
ECUpirate44
Feb 5, 11:45 AM
WHERE? Where can I find that wallpaper?
Here ya go!
http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=think%20different%20wallpaper&order=9&offset=24#/d21vklh
Here ya go!
http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=think%20different%20wallpaper&order=9&offset=24#/d21vklh
jtap
Feb 19, 07:12 PM
Do it like that, it's better for the readers.
Ya sorry.
Ya sorry.
more...
Apple 26.2
Mar 27, 03:19 PM
Funny.
And sad.
And sad.
Socratic
May 2, 06:03 PM
I'm not gay, but I take offense to the idea of equating homosexual activity with "sleeping with hookers, and intravenous drug users". Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they sleep around, just like someone who is straight doesn't just sleep around. This is something that you should probably reflect on, in that gay people can be just as likely or not to sleep around and behave in risky ways as straight people can.
Yadmonkey is right. I don't equate it with anything. They are just a category of activities with higher risk of communication of blood communicable diseases. The issue isn't the amount of sex or even the number of partners. The issue is that male to male sex by its very nature has a higher chance of passing on certain diseases than male to female. Risky male to female is also excluded (if you have slept with a prostitute or been in countries with high levels of disease). It's not a moral judgement (if it were surely lesbians would also be blocked from giving). I never implied that gay people sleep around more than anyone else. I also didn't imply that they are more likely to behave in risky ways, I just said that the same act male to male has a higher risk than male to female - a statistical reality that leads to a policy some may feel is bigoted. I'm just pointing out why it's not.
Yadmonkey is right. I don't equate it with anything. They are just a category of activities with higher risk of communication of blood communicable diseases. The issue isn't the amount of sex or even the number of partners. The issue is that male to male sex by its very nature has a higher chance of passing on certain diseases than male to female. Risky male to female is also excluded (if you have slept with a prostitute or been in countries with high levels of disease). It's not a moral judgement (if it were surely lesbians would also be blocked from giving). I never implied that gay people sleep around more than anyone else. I also didn't imply that they are more likely to behave in risky ways, I just said that the same act male to male has a higher risk than male to female - a statistical reality that leads to a policy some may feel is bigoted. I'm just pointing out why it's not.
more...
MacCoaster
Aug 15, 01:47 PM
I had to blink twice. Too phallic! :p
Gee, that'll tell too much about me. :eek:
Gee, that'll tell too much about me. :eek:
GGJstudios
Apr 15, 11:50 PM
What do I do about annoying ads? (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:MacRumors_FAQ#What_do_I_do_about_annoying_ads.3F)
more...
.jpg%3F567 "kids birthday cake (L3)")
Prom1
Dec 29, 09:17 PM
nefan65 & Silas1066;
Without the need to requote Silas' post yet again I must disagree on a few points:
1. India is not the ONLY country that the USA IT Industry is outsourcing to:
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and China have already been done for the past 2-7yrs already if not more. Singling out India is a cop-out and its mostly programming that is outsourced (or was initially) along with level 1-3 support lines. Microsoft is not the only corporation to do this: nor the first. Again singling out India instead of just correctly generalizing outsourcing - shows a bit of ignorance; if not then just simply bad etiquette & taste. Admit that at the very least.
2. The example that IT would entirely be outsourced and go the way of textiles is a bit long stretched but based on current trends & facts.
Examples: Although the auto industry went heavily to Japan as a quick shift for better build quality or fuel efficiency [Honda, Nissan Toyota of the 90s, Infiniti & Lexus as well], the German auto industry have always been there [Audi-Union: Audi/VW/Porsche, BMW, etc]. Ford is the only USA auto marker that didn't claim bankruptcy protection and well the quality of their cars has NEVER been better, sales are well up & the product line more refined to target consumers.
- The point I'm making is that engineering accomplishments, R&D, design trends, performance, fuel efficiency/alternative modes of energy consumption (a new paradigm), car costs & basic equipment, etc have always changed which auto maker is on top.
The same can be said about the animation industry. Japan is king with just about all things Anime, but the big blockbuster movie $$ is still done by companies in the US of A. Different styles of artistic animation, expression, plots, voice acting or voice overs etc change. Can you honestly say that the American animation industry is failing against that of Japan? Artists, just like engineers work outside of borders - so long as laws, visas, patents, contracts don't bind them.
Now focusing on IT. Sure there are a number of 12-16yr old geeky pimple faced, goggle wearing (I'm being overly stereotypical here) kids across the world that can traverse very well in command line in Linux, or even in Terminal in OSX, or DOS on Windows. Many of whom can whip up a NASTY Virus or cluster of VIRII that'll bring an office to its knees - if built from scratched code in a matter of minutes.
BUT: you're forgetting those professors in certain universities around the world and the real forefathers of C+, UNIX code/command line, etc that built shells from scratch with serious purposeful insight that many are STILL in original form today in both Linux/Unix. These oldie's but goodies - like T. Berners Lee are able to build applications we use daily. These guys will continue to teach and work at the worlds best technology corporations: just because like Flynn their addicted and its their world, heart & soul.
Yes servers will be virtualized almost entirely - as if they where not already: remember RS400/MainFrame(?). Desktops as well - yet there are still 2 things that will allow the desktop and laptop survive for at least another decade.
1. People still love to OWN things; tangible or not.
- people still love the ability to grab what they own and use it portably the way they can or where they can:
The richest guys in the world have limo's and drivers 6x on Sunday. But they still buy, own, and drive their own cars. music since the very beginning has always loved to be played & shared by people. 8-track played at home/car only, cassette allowed it in smaller rooms and the walkman was born, Mini-Disc then compact disc made it even more portable and digital quality, now MP3's allow more music to be stored on CD/DVD's and on HDD/SSD's. What's one thing that has NOT changed? People still love to play/share/own music and love to have pictures or memories of those that play their favorites.
2. Networks are STILL limited.
- Limited by bandwidth: especially when talking about virtualized environments to be used/shared across continents: Riverbeds help quite a bit but still load balance and bandwidth issues.
- Limited by memory speeds ^ see bandwidth above.
- Limited by storage space - and the speeds to read/write access: this is more important than the horsepower race in cars or the top speed race or acceleration.
One day we'll have our own worldwide network where terminals are used along with tablets/smartphones - very similar to a Brainiac in Superman. Laugh all you want but with Google, Oracle, VMWare, Microsoft, Apple Sun Microsystems (back end servers), CISCO, Intel & AMD, BELL Labs/Ericsson LB/Lucent Technologies/ Military/ etc sooner or later their work will finally become a harmony - hardware, software (code/graphics/GUI/Voice & gesture control) will all reach a pinnacle where the human equation has reached its peak of intake/input rate of speed/quality of graphics/motion/computational power and bandwidth makes any micro form of latency negligible (or non-relavent). Some say there is always something better but sooner or later it'll happen. [PST: physically humans haven't evolved much in the past million years].
OK I think I had too much to toke on this derailment.
What benefits of the core code in OSX can be utilized to better suite corporations and are there ANY applications that cannot be ported to OS X - and extensions used by applications that cannot be used directly or ported over in real-time to be read/edited in the OSX ported app?!
Without the need to requote Silas' post yet again I must disagree on a few points:
1. India is not the ONLY country that the USA IT Industry is outsourcing to:
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and China have already been done for the past 2-7yrs already if not more. Singling out India is a cop-out and its mostly programming that is outsourced (or was initially) along with level 1-3 support lines. Microsoft is not the only corporation to do this: nor the first. Again singling out India instead of just correctly generalizing outsourcing - shows a bit of ignorance; if not then just simply bad etiquette & taste. Admit that at the very least.
2. The example that IT would entirely be outsourced and go the way of textiles is a bit long stretched but based on current trends & facts.
Examples: Although the auto industry went heavily to Japan as a quick shift for better build quality or fuel efficiency [Honda, Nissan Toyota of the 90s, Infiniti & Lexus as well], the German auto industry have always been there [Audi-Union: Audi/VW/Porsche, BMW, etc]. Ford is the only USA auto marker that didn't claim bankruptcy protection and well the quality of their cars has NEVER been better, sales are well up & the product line more refined to target consumers.
- The point I'm making is that engineering accomplishments, R&D, design trends, performance, fuel efficiency/alternative modes of energy consumption (a new paradigm), car costs & basic equipment, etc have always changed which auto maker is on top.
The same can be said about the animation industry. Japan is king with just about all things Anime, but the big blockbuster movie $$ is still done by companies in the US of A. Different styles of artistic animation, expression, plots, voice acting or voice overs etc change. Can you honestly say that the American animation industry is failing against that of Japan? Artists, just like engineers work outside of borders - so long as laws, visas, patents, contracts don't bind them.
Now focusing on IT. Sure there are a number of 12-16yr old geeky pimple faced, goggle wearing (I'm being overly stereotypical here) kids across the world that can traverse very well in command line in Linux, or even in Terminal in OSX, or DOS on Windows. Many of whom can whip up a NASTY Virus or cluster of VIRII that'll bring an office to its knees - if built from scratched code in a matter of minutes.
BUT: you're forgetting those professors in certain universities around the world and the real forefathers of C+, UNIX code/command line, etc that built shells from scratch with serious purposeful insight that many are STILL in original form today in both Linux/Unix. These oldie's but goodies - like T. Berners Lee are able to build applications we use daily. These guys will continue to teach and work at the worlds best technology corporations: just because like Flynn their addicted and its their world, heart & soul.
Yes servers will be virtualized almost entirely - as if they where not already: remember RS400/MainFrame(?). Desktops as well - yet there are still 2 things that will allow the desktop and laptop survive for at least another decade.
1. People still love to OWN things; tangible or not.
- people still love the ability to grab what they own and use it portably the way they can or where they can:
The richest guys in the world have limo's and drivers 6x on Sunday. But they still buy, own, and drive their own cars. music since the very beginning has always loved to be played & shared by people. 8-track played at home/car only, cassette allowed it in smaller rooms and the walkman was born, Mini-Disc then compact disc made it even more portable and digital quality, now MP3's allow more music to be stored on CD/DVD's and on HDD/SSD's. What's one thing that has NOT changed? People still love to play/share/own music and love to have pictures or memories of those that play their favorites.
2. Networks are STILL limited.
- Limited by bandwidth: especially when talking about virtualized environments to be used/shared across continents: Riverbeds help quite a bit but still load balance and bandwidth issues.
- Limited by memory speeds ^ see bandwidth above.
- Limited by storage space - and the speeds to read/write access: this is more important than the horsepower race in cars or the top speed race or acceleration.
One day we'll have our own worldwide network where terminals are used along with tablets/smartphones - very similar to a Brainiac in Superman. Laugh all you want but with Google, Oracle, VMWare, Microsoft, Apple Sun Microsystems (back end servers), CISCO, Intel & AMD, BELL Labs/Ericsson LB/Lucent Technologies/ Military/ etc sooner or later their work will finally become a harmony - hardware, software (code/graphics/GUI/Voice & gesture control) will all reach a pinnacle where the human equation has reached its peak of intake/input rate of speed/quality of graphics/motion/computational power and bandwidth makes any micro form of latency negligible (or non-relavent). Some say there is always something better but sooner or later it'll happen. [PST: physically humans haven't evolved much in the past million years].
OK I think I had too much to toke on this derailment.
What benefits of the core code in OSX can be utilized to better suite corporations and are there ANY applications that cannot be ported to OS X - and extensions used by applications that cannot be used directly or ported over in real-time to be read/edited in the OSX ported app?!
labman
Nov 15, 09:30 PM
Wrong Forum! ;)
more...
obey908
Aug 16, 09:19 PM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/Screenshot2010-08-16at101728PM.png
Lord Blackadder
Jan 10, 10:32 PM
That's a really good point, I'm surprised they haven't already. Everybody else is all over the b-segment now, and yet I haven't even heard a peep from VW about this possibility.
I don't get it either. Volkswagen is very well placed to hit the ground running with a strong entry into the city car segment, but insteatd they are badge-engineering Chrysler minivans, and turning their Jetta & Passat into bloated, cheap, boring mid-size clones.
I don't care for the front end, but I think it's an improvement. Call me crazy? We're not talking about the Passat CC here, but the one that looks like a Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, Pontiac G8, or another half dozen other cars on the road with almost the exact same body shape.
As with those other cars you mentioned, it has no character, and is now just an appliance.
I wish car manufacturers would try harder to make their cars look DIFFERENT instead of the same. Yes, I'm a car nerd and I know the difference between a VW and a Honda, but what's scary is Honda doesn't want you to know - **** look at Hyundai, they want you to see the Genesis and think it's a BMW.. that's DUMB!
To be fair, the Genesis proves that Hyundai can match or beat the Japanese in terms of quality and engineering these days. The V8 in the Genesis is a decent motor. And the Genesis Coupe is as good as any Japanese sports coupe in its price range. They have some of the same quirks as Japanese cars (slightly zany styling, a bit sterile), but they are solid machines.
But it is true that midsize cars (in particular) these days are very boring. And that's precisely why I find this move by VW depressing. There was a time, not long ago, when SAAB, Volvo, VW, and even (though to a lesser extent) Mazda, Nissan, Toyota and Honda made cool and interesting cars. And today, apart from the hybrid craze, cars are about as boring as they've ever been.
I don't get it either. Volkswagen is very well placed to hit the ground running with a strong entry into the city car segment, but insteatd they are badge-engineering Chrysler minivans, and turning their Jetta & Passat into bloated, cheap, boring mid-size clones.
I don't care for the front end, but I think it's an improvement. Call me crazy? We're not talking about the Passat CC here, but the one that looks like a Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, Pontiac G8, or another half dozen other cars on the road with almost the exact same body shape.
As with those other cars you mentioned, it has no character, and is now just an appliance.
I wish car manufacturers would try harder to make their cars look DIFFERENT instead of the same. Yes, I'm a car nerd and I know the difference between a VW and a Honda, but what's scary is Honda doesn't want you to know - **** look at Hyundai, they want you to see the Genesis and think it's a BMW.. that's DUMB!
To be fair, the Genesis proves that Hyundai can match or beat the Japanese in terms of quality and engineering these days. The V8 in the Genesis is a decent motor. And the Genesis Coupe is as good as any Japanese sports coupe in its price range. They have some of the same quirks as Japanese cars (slightly zany styling, a bit sterile), but they are solid machines.
But it is true that midsize cars (in particular) these days are very boring. And that's precisely why I find this move by VW depressing. There was a time, not long ago, when SAAB, Volvo, VW, and even (though to a lesser extent) Mazda, Nissan, Toyota and Honda made cool and interesting cars. And today, apart from the hybrid craze, cars are about as boring as they've ever been.
more...
revelated
Jan 20, 11:16 PM
Frankly I'm skeptical. I owned a 1999 Altima GXE with a manual transmition. Great great car for what it was. I'd still be driving it if some drunken moron in a truck hadn't totaled it. Anyways, my Altima was equipped with a different engine (KA24DE 4-cylinder, 2.4L) but was about the same size as your engine. It weighed slightly less, about 250lbs or so. Under normal driving conditions I could manage 30-31mpg combined cycle. On the highway, if I kept the speed down, I could do 35mpg (my best numbers were from a 360 mile trip @60mph - 39.5mpg). I had a 15.9 gallon tank, which meant I could get just about 500 miles on a tank of gas (I was brave once and drove 492 miles on one tank before I chickened out).
I don't know which year Altima you have, but you have a 20 gallon fuel tank and depending on what year, your EPA mileage is between 20-23 city and 27-32 highway. I'll grant you the 32mpg number because my Altima did better than the EPA numbers. 32mpg will get you 320 miles on half a tank. Heck, I'll even give you my best 39.5mpg number - but that still only gets you 395 miles on half a tank. In order to go 500 miles on half a tank of gas, you'd have to be getting 50mpg. And I don't believe that. I don't know of a single gasoline-powered car that can go 1000 miles on one full tank.
Here's the deal. You need to understand how gas burning really works. You also are not at liberty to speak on what is or is not possible on that trip without actually having driven it - as I have.
Mountains separate Phoenix and San Diego. Additionally, there is a long stretch where one can set cruise control at 80MPH, barely pushing the RPMs because it's in the highest gear. The mountains result in frequent instances of just coasting down, and with the exception of certain inclines, your acceleration is done by gas spurts rather than constant depressing of the accelerator. Less actual acceleration, less gas burned for the distance. Lower RPMs, less gas needed to propel the car. Use the car's momentum to keep it moving at a high speed without constant acceleration. Once I hit Arizona and the speed cameras and cops kicked in full force, I was limited to 65 MPH. That of course naturally increased my mileage since it took even less to move the car.
What I'm saying to you is that if one knows how to drive a car properly on freeways, you can hit mileage that exceeds what the car would normally be able to accomplish quite easily. It's city driving that drops that number significantly. Too many people are so hell bent on the numbers. The numbers don't mean jack in the real world and I don't know how many times I need to tell people that. The web is replete with stories of non-hybrid Altimas pushing 450+ miles. The key is how you drive, not the capacity of the tank or the rated MPG. It's the people who are lead footed that don't see the full potential of the car.
I don't know which year Altima you have, but you have a 20 gallon fuel tank and depending on what year, your EPA mileage is between 20-23 city and 27-32 highway. I'll grant you the 32mpg number because my Altima did better than the EPA numbers. 32mpg will get you 320 miles on half a tank. Heck, I'll even give you my best 39.5mpg number - but that still only gets you 395 miles on half a tank. In order to go 500 miles on half a tank of gas, you'd have to be getting 50mpg. And I don't believe that. I don't know of a single gasoline-powered car that can go 1000 miles on one full tank.
Here's the deal. You need to understand how gas burning really works. You also are not at liberty to speak on what is or is not possible on that trip without actually having driven it - as I have.
Mountains separate Phoenix and San Diego. Additionally, there is a long stretch where one can set cruise control at 80MPH, barely pushing the RPMs because it's in the highest gear. The mountains result in frequent instances of just coasting down, and with the exception of certain inclines, your acceleration is done by gas spurts rather than constant depressing of the accelerator. Less actual acceleration, less gas burned for the distance. Lower RPMs, less gas needed to propel the car. Use the car's momentum to keep it moving at a high speed without constant acceleration. Once I hit Arizona and the speed cameras and cops kicked in full force, I was limited to 65 MPH. That of course naturally increased my mileage since it took even less to move the car.
What I'm saying to you is that if one knows how to drive a car properly on freeways, you can hit mileage that exceeds what the car would normally be able to accomplish quite easily. It's city driving that drops that number significantly. Too many people are so hell bent on the numbers. The numbers don't mean jack in the real world and I don't know how many times I need to tell people that. The web is replete with stories of non-hybrid Altimas pushing 450+ miles. The key is how you drive, not the capacity of the tank or the rated MPG. It's the people who are lead footed that don't see the full potential of the car.
mkjellman
Oct 30, 11:45 PM
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/unwiredtec/rtcreator/gui/Converter
:(
:(
vvebster
Feb 18, 12:02 AM
February iPad wallpapers
271797
271798
271797
271798
Leareth
Sep 24, 04:37 PM
At 18 you are pretty much responsible for your actions, and your parents can't really dictate how you are suppossed to run your life. However if you live with your parents in their house, you have to abide by their rules. If they say no staying at girlfriends house while you live with them , well you have two choices, do what they say or move out on your own. I see no reason why two consenting and responsible people could not meet and have some fun as long as both parental units are OK with their kids screwing another kid in their house... and by kids I mean any age, no matter how old one is they are always a kid to their parents :)
nevir
Oct 5, 11:57 PM
woah mama. Is that video legit?!! what was that iPod-like thing at the end!
nah, pretty sure that last part is doctored - fun though :p
nah, pretty sure that last part is doctored - fun though :p
Bobjob186
Jun 21, 04:58 PM
Original iSight Camera
Comes with:
Camera
Firewire Cord
and Stand.
The stand was removed properly and can be put on another computer.
$180 shipped, w/priority shipping.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2240/img2281mb7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/5172/img2282zm6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8665/img2284zy2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8285/img2285qt8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Comes with:
Camera
Firewire Cord
and Stand.
The stand was removed properly and can be put on another computer.
$180 shipped, w/priority shipping.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2240/img2281mb7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/5172/img2282zm6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8665/img2284zy2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8285/img2285qt8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
JoeG4
Jan 12, 04:58 PM
The 2.0T engine is cool, since it effectively did about 230hp at the crank, very impressive for a 4cyl engine. It made the V6 look bad.
My qualm isn't the engine, it was the way they packaged it - and they DID fix this on the later runs (I think on the 2009 models you could get the I4s equipped every bit as well as the V6).
But in it led me to buying a 300C instead - and after hearing about stuff on vwvortex I really didn't feel bad about that decision. As for the 5cyl, it is competent but I don't see the point to it - people should be buying a TDI instead, and the 5cyl is a noisy odd engine. >>
My qualm isn't the engine, it was the way they packaged it - and they DID fix this on the later runs (I think on the 2009 models you could get the I4s equipped every bit as well as the V6).
But in it led me to buying a 300C instead - and after hearing about stuff on vwvortex I really didn't feel bad about that decision. As for the 5cyl, it is competent but I don't see the point to it - people should be buying a TDI instead, and the 5cyl is a noisy odd engine. >>
No comments:
Post a Comment