dragonsbane
Mar 20, 12:09 AM
It is nice that some folks here feel they know the "law". Look at the world your "law" has created. Look back in history and review what "law" has allowed humans to do to other humans and our planet.
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.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
But hey, no one should listen to me since I think borders, the military and money should all be abolished ;) They, like DRM, are simply used to divide humans from one another. We need to find ways to come together - not separate. Anything that limits the ability for people to voluntarily come together and create community is bad. DRM is just another example of human frailty and vanity.
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. Hell, 100 years ago your law said women were not smart enough to vote. Heck, in some parts of the world the law still says that.
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.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
But hey, no one should listen to me since I think borders, the military and money should all be abolished ;) They, like DRM, are simply used to divide humans from one another. We need to find ways to come together - not separate. Anything that limits the ability for people to voluntarily come together and create community is bad. DRM is just another example of human frailty and vanity.
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. Hell, 100 years ago your law said women were not smart enough to vote. Heck, in some parts of the world the law still says that.
leekohler
Mar 25, 11:56 AM
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
munkery
May 2, 04:05 PM
In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
Multimedia
Oct 21, 01:07 PM
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.I doubt anything with the Mac Pro will change (other than the CPUs) when the 8-core models ship. Intel originally was very committed to using the FB-DIMM type RAM in their systems for the next couple years. However, they have since backtracked on that and said that they will continue to explore other options. Who knows what that means... I thik it means that we'll probably see DDR3 on mid-range systems in '07, probably in notebooks as well at some point mid to late year. But I would guess that for the foreseeable future, FB-DIMM is the standard for Xeon workstations and servers, so Mac Pro and XServer should continue with this type of RAM for a while. When Intel finally shifts to the new 45nm process sometime mid/late next year, then all bets are off as they will need to increase bandwidth for both the RAM and FSB to keep in step with CPU growth.Zactly. Waiting for prices to change is probably an act of futility other than waiting for an 8-core refurb. The 3GHz Woody Mac Pro Refurb is $3299 which would compare to the 2.33GHz Clovertown. So there isn't going to be a lot of "savings" waiting for the refurbs which probably won't show up until late January at the soonest. Can you afford to be without all that power in the meantime? I can't wait.
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.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:26 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
Mord
Jul 12, 04:12 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
diamornte
Apr 13, 04:03 AM
Most people here, will tinker with FCP and never actually make feature films or shows. You all have an opinion, but I think that people that actually do this for a living will be very happy with the results.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
mattbatt
Oct 31, 02:08 PM
Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
Marx55
Oct 26, 03:09 AM
ONE THING IS CLEAR:
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
theBB
Sep 12, 04:24 PM
I just hope it gets hacked so 3rd parties can add functionality to it. (unlike front row)
video chat
screen savers
3rd party applications
RSS
3rd party streaming media formats
keyboard and mouse.
larger remotes.
Get a Mac mini.
video chat
screen savers
3rd party applications
RSS
3rd party streaming media formats
keyboard and mouse.
larger remotes.
Get a Mac mini.
mrkramer
Mar 13, 11:49 AM
The only change to my opinion is thinking that Nuclear energy may not be the best for areas that are at high risk of earthquakes unless they have some sort of cooling system that can survive with no power. But Nuclear is still the best viable option we have for most places.
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 04:16 AM
Overclocked my Athlon 1.4GHz Tbird to 1.522GHz, benchmark results (under C#, which was fastest) did an average of 7390 milliseconds (7.39 seconds). w00t!
Gotta love overclocking.
Gotta love overclocking.
MacRumors
May 5, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/05/05/atandt-customers-continuing-to-experience-excessive-dropped-calls/)
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
prom hairstyles for long hair
prom hairstyles for long hair
prom hairdos for long hair.
a long hair prom style!
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:13 AM
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
Of course they do.
But have they been subjected to systematic discrimination (often legitimized by religious nonsense) for centuries? Is there and active campaign that promotes the idea that "God hate fatties"? Is the government trying to prevent fat people from exercising their basic human rights?
When all of this can be said of fat people, the situations will be equivalent.
Of course they do.
But have they been subjected to systematic discrimination (often legitimized by religious nonsense) for centuries? Is there and active campaign that promotes the idea that "God hate fatties"? Is the government trying to prevent fat people from exercising their basic human rights?
When all of this can be said of fat people, the situations will be equivalent.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:55 PM
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
The dull gray colour, the fact that it isn't an elite app costing over $1000 making it unavailable to the mass.. uhmm the huge instruction manual?
(/sarcasm)
The dull gray colour, the fact that it isn't an elite app costing over $1000 making it unavailable to the mass.. uhmm the huge instruction manual?
(/sarcasm)
gb3651
Mar 19, 07:46 PM
You can't download full albums for 9.99...you have to pay .99 for each song. I'm sticking with Jhymn
gravytrain84
Mar 18, 01:31 AM
I knew this was coming sooner or later....:mad:
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:28 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
skunk
Mar 27, 07:50 AM
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes.I think being Catholic is a psychological problem, but it doesn't mean that I have any desire to deny Catholics the same rights as anyone else.
Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:48 AM
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.
Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.