Watch the Farscape episode, "Thank God It's Friday, Again." Am I the only one thinking that the episode holds more than a cursory resemblence to Super Mario 2?
I have a Mac-junkie friend with a desk drawer full of Newtons who might disagree with you. Luckily, he never got around to buying an iTunes, so he may not even be aware of that whole replacement-battery problem, or the crappy $100-battery "solution". Although he wasn't too amused when I pointed out the folklore.org discussion about the original Mac being a $1500 machine, even though they jacked up the price by a thousand bucks at the last minute.
Let him disagree. It is an inevitability that product lines become EOL at some point. Sure the iPod (not iTunes) has had it's battery issue, but it is the ONLY major problem the iPod has had. It has been a phenomonal product overall.
I suppose we could also talk about unpleasantries such as the firmware-update disappearing-RAM fiasco in 2001, or the refusal to compensate iBook buyers in 2000 for cracks in the case, or that little problem with fires on the original PowerBooks, or that free-but-then-not-free.mac deal... boy, you Mac guys must Think Really Different.
Oh big friggin' deal. The dissapearing RAM issue was actually Apple's attempt to prevent Macs from using RAM that was out of spec! If you bought cheap, crappy RAM that's your fault. The.mac deal is called "business". That little thing where people try to make money. If they don't want it, they don't have to buy it.
Ha, and most those came from just a minute or two of Googling with the words "apple screwed". I probably missed a lot of really good stuff.
Or "dell screwed", or "microsoft screwed"...
That proves nothing except that Apple, like any entity (corporate or otherwise) is incapable of satisfying everyone all at the same time.
Bad things happen, people sometimes become unsatisfied. Of all the companies I have delt with that do work in your interest Apple has been the best to me. I wouldn't buy their products if I felt otherwise.
Nobody is without their problems, including whatever company you tend to favor. I can't blame you for nitpicking on the small issues to make your point, since that is a common tactic of people who don't know any better. They never provide an balanced opinion.
The right thing to do is look at the successes, and the benefits Apple has provided their customers and you have acknowledged none of them in addition to the bad things you are hung up on.
I don't understand why you all think that Apple is going to do what is in your best interest. They are a corporation. They will do what is in their best interest. If not, they are doing an injustice to their shareholders.
Not all corporations are the same. We all know that. Apple is heavily dependent on customer loyality. They will NEVER intentionally screw the customer. If they do, Apple would dissapear. This isn't a Microsoft scenario where they're so big and ubiquitous customer satisifaction is almost irrlevent.
No, the University of Rochester made the deal with Napster specifically because Apple would not include DRM into their OS, as apparently XP does (I don't touch the stuff, so I wouldn't know for sure). This according to our provost who was in charge of making the deal.
I firmly believe that Steve Jobs would not include DRM into Macs, not unless there was extreme pressure to do so (i.e. iTunes store wouldn't exist without it).
Personally, I don't see why Apple couldn't be the answer. You certainly aren't limited to Mac OS X as an OS, and if we don't buy DRM equipped BIOSes, what would we buy?
I think it does. The DVI spec allows for analog signals. Check the pinouts for DVI connector. Apple only has DVI/ADC , and they include a VGA adapter for the ADC. I also own a DVI to VGA adapter and it works just fine.
DVI should replace VGA.
(ADC is an Apple only connector that is basically DVI with USB and power pins included).
And a few of the items are useless to me as well, for example, I don't even own an iPod yet I still installed the update. Also, not all the updates are security updates, a good portion of them are legitimate upgrades that provides new features and fixes non-security related bugs.
However, in stark contrast to this, if you go to Microsoft's website, click on 'downloads' and do a search for "security" for "windows xp" (from pop-up list), you will get 92 results! 92! Granted that search criteria isn't perfect, because in the list I do see some miscellaneous items that are irrelevant to most users, like "Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer v1.2 (for IT Professionals)" but the *vast* majority are service packs and security updates.
In fact, only yesterday I had the fun of updating Windows 2000 (running on a sporadically used SunPCi environment), and found that there were 40+ updates since I last touched it a few months ago (whenever the last big worm came around)... most of them weren't security, but it was still a lot of updates, and this 2000 installation already had many previously installed updates since it was installed.
Linux certainly is nowhere as bad as Windows. Updates are a fact of nature for ANY piece of software, but sometimes it just goes beyond natural to disturbing.
I don't dispute the spinning beach ball though, because it does happen. Like in safari if you open a slashdot article where every comment has a pop-up menu for moderation under it. Safari spins. Luckily you can still hide the app, and do other stuff, and on top of that Apple did the nice thing of transforming the cursor from beach-ball to normal arrow when you move the cursor away from the hung application.
DISCLAIMER: IMHO applies to entire comment:) This must be a difference between the Orthodox church and Protestantism. When a Protestant becomes a Christian, they enter into a covenant with God in much the same way that circumcision marked the covenant between a Jew and YHWH. Baptism is good, but it's not a sacrament as it is in the Orthodox church; baptism is an outward symbol of faith. While we're on the subject, communion/Eucharist is an inward symbol of faith, and so I would argue that, while it is good to partake of the Eucharist, it is not an essential element of Christianity. Romans 10.9-10: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." I really believe that Christianity is as simple as that - a simple verbal confession and the profound belief in Christ as Saviour. Again, IMHO.
I would agree that we may be treading on the fundamental differences between Orthodox (and Catholicism) vs. Protestantism and this is not the forum for discussion (or arguing) of the differences.
I can say IMHO as well, that while it is true that a verbal confessional and inward belief is integral, it is only part of the story. The rest of it relies on constantly repenting sins, and the doing of good works. Thought and action.
Also, a vital aspect of Orthodox theology is the concept of Theosis. It is a strong concept with subtleties that can be easily misconstrued. The link states it clearly I think.
I can't believe I'm reading a Slashdot poster who actually appears to understand that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiatory rite into the covenant.
This isn't true. Baptism is a public confirmation that you are a Christian. Jesus was baptised by John when he began his public ministry.
There was nothing wrong with my initial statement. In fact you make baptism sound more like a public show than the true act of a covenant with God that it is.
Paul refers to "spiritual circumcision" as the new "covenant"; in the OT/Hebrew bible, circumcision was the sign of the covenant (see Moses), but in the NT, Jesus' death is the final sacrifice for believers.
I don't know what church you belong to, but it is an accepted idea that baptism is the sign of a covenant between God replacing Jewish circumscision. I'm not sure what point that above statement tried to make. They are both true statements but disjointed in context with the topic of this off-topic dicussion.
"In short, circumcisions are for the Jews, not Christians."
Paul distinctly says that circumcision is a non-issue in Christianity; it doesn't matter whether you're snipped or not.
Again, my statement was not incorrect. I specifically said the Orthodox church doesn't care if you are circumcised, but some make note not to take the act of circumcision in a religious tone, because it no longer applies in Christianity.
I have no idea why you basically reiterated my entire comment.
You said the keyword: evidence. There is exactly zero evidence that Christianity is valid. Hell, there isn't even a single shred of evidence that Christ was ever born.
All in all, if I had to believe in something, whether it proved true or not, it would be Christianity. Religions sometimes have good messages in them that are worth living to.
However, I should note while the supernatural aspects of Christianity certainly cannot be proved, there are indeed non-Christian references to Jesus of a more secular nature.
That does not necessarily constitute a complete forensic analysis, but it does add to the possibility that Jesus was at least a real figure that did suffer as mentioned in the Bible.
Keep in mind that anyone who would be willing to record anything about Christianity would most likely be a Christian, immediately excluding them from the realm of what you consider a reliable source. Why would anyone who is a non-Christian bother historically noting someone who they probably considered a crackpot?
This may be one reason:
The Annals by Tactius offers a passage commonly used to claim Jesus existed in a true historical setting. Here is the excerpt:
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
This I believe makes a reference to Nero's claim that Christians were responsible for burning Rome. However while doing that makes a mention of Jesus. if anything, it's an interesting passage.
There are more references by Roman and Jewish sources that are interesting to consider.
So no, your above assertion is not necessarily true.
Some Catholics, especially orthodox, follow a strict interpretation of the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament, Jewish converts are circumsized. It is common practice for Catholics to be circumsized as well.
Indeed, they do follow a strict interpretation. However, you allude to an interpretation that is flawed.
Circumcision was used by the Jews to enter in a covenant with God. When Jesus came around, the new way to enter into the covenant with God was baptism (both Jewish circumcision and Orthodox baptisms are generally done to infants).
There is nothing against circumcision in the Eastern Orthodox Church, however it is not part of Church tradition, but has become more of a social tradition.
In short, circumcisions are for the Jews, not Christians.
Junior year of high school--I showed a few classmates in my AP Comp Sci class (which was a large Mac lab) how to bypass the "At Ease" security program (Apple's then-answer to problem of keepings Macs in a public space from being trashed).
I hit a keystroke, dropped into the debugger, typed "gfinder" (I believe) and it took you to the full featured Finder.
I didn't do any trashing myself, but the kids that I taught this to told others and someone trashed a Mac. So I got suspended for 3 days. They couldn't spare the time to track down the kids who did the real damage and instead decided to take me down instead. This was about 9 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch the Farscape episode, "Thank God It's Friday, Again." Am I the only one thinking that the episode holds more than a cursory resemblence to Super Mario 2?
Tribbles.
Don't know enough about the Christian concept of a 'Just War'
That's the funny thing. There isn't any.
As an Arab Christian myself, I'm glad.
I have a Mac-junkie friend with a desk drawer full of Newtons who might disagree with you. Luckily, he never got around to buying an iTunes, so he may not even be aware of that whole replacement-battery problem, or the crappy $100-battery "solution". Although he wasn't too amused when I pointed out the folklore.org discussion about the original Mac being a $1500 machine, even though they jacked up the price by a thousand bucks at the last minute.
.mac deal... boy, you Mac guys must Think Really Different.
.mac deal is called "business". That little thing where people try to make money. If they don't want it, they don't have to buy it.
Let him disagree. It is an inevitability that product lines become EOL at some point. Sure the iPod (not iTunes) has had it's battery issue, but it is the ONLY major problem the iPod has had. It has been a phenomonal product overall.
I suppose we could also talk about unpleasantries such as the firmware-update disappearing-RAM fiasco in 2001, or the refusal to compensate iBook buyers in 2000 for cracks in the case, or that little problem with fires on the original PowerBooks, or that free-but-then-not-free
Oh big friggin' deal. The dissapearing RAM issue was actually Apple's attempt to prevent Macs from using RAM that was out of spec! If you bought cheap, crappy RAM that's your fault. The
Ha, and most those came from just a minute or two of Googling with the words "apple screwed". I probably missed a lot of really good stuff.
Or "dell screwed", or "microsoft screwed"...
That proves nothing except that Apple, like any entity (corporate or otherwise) is incapable of satisfying everyone all at the same time.
Bad things happen, people sometimes become unsatisfied. Of all the companies I have delt with that do work in your interest Apple has been the best to me. I wouldn't buy their products if I felt otherwise.
Nobody is without their problems, including whatever company you tend to favor. I can't blame you for nitpicking on the small issues to make your point, since that is a common tactic of people who don't know any better. They never provide an balanced opinion.
The right thing to do is look at the successes, and the benefits Apple has provided their customers and you have acknowledged none of them in addition to the bad things you are hung up on.
I don't understand why you all think that Apple is going to do what is in your best interest. They are a corporation. They will do what is in their best interest. If not, they are doing an injustice to their shareholders.
Not all corporations are the same. We all know that. Apple is heavily dependent on customer loyality. They will NEVER intentionally screw the customer. If they do, Apple would dissapear. This isn't a Microsoft scenario where they're so big and ubiquitous customer satisifaction is almost irrlevent.
No, the University of Rochester made the deal with Napster specifically because Apple would not include DRM into their OS, as apparently XP does (I don't touch the stuff, so I wouldn't know for sure). This according to our provost who was in charge of making the deal.
I firmly believe that Steve Jobs would not include DRM into Macs, not unless there was extreme pressure to do so (i.e. iTunes store wouldn't exist without it).
Personally, I don't see why Apple couldn't be the answer. You certainly aren't limited to Mac OS X as an OS, and if we don't buy DRM equipped BIOSes, what would we buy?
but DVI on Analog CRTs doesn't make much sense.
I think it does. The DVI spec allows for analog signals. Check the pinouts for DVI connector. Apple only has DVI/ADC , and they include a VGA adapter for the ADC. I also own a DVI to VGA adapter and it works just fine.
DVI should replace VGA.
(ADC is an Apple only connector that is basically DVI with USB and power pins included).
Oh really? Well, I just happen to have handy my "Software Update log" for Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther).
[This log starts from when I installed Panther back in October]
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:12:13 PM America/New_York: Installed "iPod Software" (2.0.1)
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:12:48 PM America/New_York: Installed "Test Software Update" (10.3)
Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:58:17 PM America/New_York: Installed "Panther Test Software Update" (2.0)
2003-10-28 17:56:44 -0500: Installed "iPod Software" (1.3.1)
2003-10-28 17:57:02 -0500: Installed "iSync" (1.3)
2003-10-28 17:57:11 -0500: Installed "iTunes" (4.1)
2003-10-28 18:28:11 -0500: Installed "Security Update 2003-10-28" (1.0)
2003-10-30 23:19:31 -0500: Installed "AirPort Software" (3.2)
2003-11-04 19:31:56 -0500: Installed "Security Update 2003-11-04" (1.0)
2003-11-04 19:32:00 -0500: Installed "Xcode Update 2003-11-03" (1.0.1)
2003-11-10 22:15:32 -0500: Installed "Mac OS X Update" (10.3.1)
2003-11-17 23:57:44 -0500: Installed "Bluetooth Software" (1.4.1)
2003-11-23 09:48:32 -0500: Installed "Security Update 2003-11-19" (1.0)
2003-12-06 21:48:44 -0500: Installed "Security Update 2003-12-05" (1.0)
2003-12-18 01:40:37 -0500: Installed "Apple Remote Desktop Client" (1.2.4)
2003-12-18 01:41:28 -0500: Installed "Mac OS X Update" (10.3.2)
2003-12-19 09:20:36 -0500: Installed "iTunes" (4.2)
2003-12-19 09:20:56 -0500: Installed "QuickTime" (6.5)
2003-12-21 10:30:23 -0500: Installed "Security Update 2003-12-19" (1.0)
2003-12-21 10:31:20 -0500: Installed "Xcode Update" (1.1)
2004-01-19 20:25:14 -0500: Installed "iCal" (1.5.2)
2004-01-28 10:14:40 -0500: Installed "AirPort Software" (3.3)
2004-01-28 10:14:49 -0500: Installed "Security Update 2004-01-26" (1.0)
And a few of the items are useless to me as well, for example, I don't even own an iPod yet I still installed the update. Also, not all the updates are security updates, a good portion of them are legitimate upgrades that provides new features and fixes non-security related bugs.
However, in stark contrast to this, if you go to Microsoft's website, click on 'downloads' and do a search for "security" for "windows xp" (from pop-up list), you will get 92 results! 92! Granted that search criteria isn't perfect, because in the list I do see some miscellaneous items that are irrelevant to most users, like "Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer v1.2 (for IT Professionals)" but the *vast* majority are service packs and security updates.
In fact, only yesterday I had the fun of updating Windows 2000 (running on a sporadically used SunPCi environment), and found that there were 40+ updates since I last touched it a few months ago (whenever the last big worm came around)... most of them weren't security, but it was still a lot of updates, and this 2000 installation already had many previously installed updates since it was installed.
Linux certainly is nowhere as bad as Windows. Updates are a fact of nature for ANY piece of software, but sometimes it just goes beyond natural to disturbing.
I don't dispute the spinning beach ball though, because it does happen. Like in safari if you open a slashdot article where every comment has a pop-up menu for moderation under it. Safari spins. Luckily you can still hide the app, and do other stuff, and on top of that Apple did the nice thing of transforming the cursor from beach-ball to normal arrow when you move the cursor away from the hung application.
Fair enough. :-)
Nice meeting you too.
DISCLAIMER: IMHO applies to entire comment
I would agree that we may be treading on the fundamental differences between Orthodox (and Catholicism) vs. Protestantism and this is not the forum for discussion (or arguing) of the differences.
I can say IMHO as well, that while it is true that a verbal confessional and inward belief is integral, it is only part of the story. The rest of it relies on constantly repenting sins, and the doing of good works. Thought and action.
Also, a vital aspect of Orthodox theology is the concept of Theosis. It is a strong concept with subtleties that can be easily misconstrued. The link states it clearly I think.
I can't believe I'm reading a Slashdot poster who actually appears to understand that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiatory rite into the covenant.
Shocking. Thank you.
You're welcome.
This isn't true. Baptism is a public confirmation that you are a Christian. Jesus was baptised by John when he began his public ministry.
There was nothing wrong with my initial statement. In fact you make baptism sound more like a public show than the true act of a covenant with God that it is.
Paul refers to "spiritual circumcision" as the new "covenant"; in the OT/Hebrew bible, circumcision was the sign of the covenant (see Moses), but in the NT, Jesus' death is the final sacrifice for believers.
I don't know what church you belong to, but it is an accepted idea that baptism is the sign of a covenant between God replacing Jewish circumscision. I'm not sure what point that above statement tried to make. They are both true statements but disjointed in context with the topic of this off-topic dicussion.
"In short, circumcisions are for the Jews, not Christians."
Paul distinctly says that circumcision is a non-issue in Christianity; it doesn't matter whether you're snipped or not.
Again, my statement was not incorrect. I specifically said the Orthodox church doesn't care if you are circumcised, but some make note not to take the act of circumcision in a religious tone, because it no longer applies in Christianity.
I have no idea why you basically reiterated my entire comment.
You said the keyword: evidence. There is exactly zero evidence that Christianity is valid. Hell, there isn't even a single shred of evidence that Christ was ever born.
All in all, if I had to believe in something, whether it proved true or not, it would be Christianity. Religions sometimes have good messages in them that are worth living to.
However, I should note while the supernatural aspects of Christianity certainly cannot be proved, there are indeed non-Christian references to Jesus of a more secular nature.
That does not necessarily constitute a complete forensic analysis, but it does add to the possibility that Jesus was at least a real figure that did suffer as mentioned in the Bible.
Keep in mind that anyone who would be willing to record anything about Christianity would most likely be a Christian, immediately excluding them from the realm of what you consider a reliable source. Why would anyone who is a non-Christian bother historically noting someone who they probably considered a crackpot?
This may be one reason:
The Annals by Tactius offers a passage commonly used to claim Jesus existed in a true historical setting. Here is the excerpt:
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
This I believe makes a reference to Nero's claim that Christians were responsible for burning Rome. However while doing that makes a mention of Jesus. if anything, it's an interesting passage.
There are more references by Roman and Jewish sources that are interesting to consider.
So no, your above assertion is not necessarily true.
Some Catholics, especially orthodox, follow a strict interpretation of the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament, Jewish converts are circumsized. It is common practice for Catholics to be circumsized as well.
Indeed, they do follow a strict interpretation. However, you allude to an interpretation that is flawed.
Circumcision was used by the Jews to enter in a covenant with God. When Jesus came around, the new way to enter into the covenant with God was baptism (both Jewish circumcision and Orthodox baptisms are generally done to infants).
There is nothing against circumcision in the Eastern Orthodox Church, however it is not part of Church tradition, but has become more of a social tradition.
In short, circumcisions are for the Jews, not Christians.
Yeah, that was before Steve Jobs had fully taken over and turned things around.
Junior year of high school--I showed a few classmates in my AP Comp Sci class (which was a large Mac lab) how to bypass the "At Ease" security program (Apple's then-answer to problem of keepings Macs in a public space from being trashed).
I hit a keystroke, dropped into the debugger, typed "gfinder" (I believe) and it took you to the full featured Finder.
I didn't do any trashing myself, but the kids that I taught this to told others and someone trashed a Mac. So I got suspended for 3 days. They couldn't spare the time to track down the kids who did the real damage and instead decided to take me down instead. This was about 9 years ago.