If you want say quad or dual graphic cards you would need to replace the motherboard.
This is a lie. Quad graphics is a BTO option.
if you want the top of the line ram you need to replace the motherboard
This is a lie. Fully-buffered DDR2 is about as top of the line as RAM gets right now, and it's the only ram the Xeon supports.
if you want the best processor you need go out and buy it because apple does not offer core duo 2 extreme edition like alienware and dell,
Core 2 Duo EE doesn't support multiple processors. Period. Given that all the new Mac Pros are Quad core Xeon, it's hard to tell whether your "best processor" comment is based on ignorance or malice.
the best sound cards are for PCs
The true best soundcards, which you've probably never seen in real life, are generally cross-platform because the Mac segment of the professional audio market is too big to ignore. It's not hard anyway, since they all use PCIe.
things like watercooling or high end psu are only supported by PCs.
The previous line of G5s were liquid cooled. With Intel's new more efficient line of chips, a little good engineering makes such measures unnecessary for all but the most obsessed case-modding idiots.
In the end you have the top moderate products but if you want a customisable computer or the best money can buy you need to stick with PCs.
Customizable in the sense of glowing case fans and tacky paint jobs I'll give you, though I suppose you could do that to a Mac Pro if you really wanted to as well. Otherwise, take a look at the interior shots of a Mac Pro sometime. I think you'll see that you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm confused. So manufacturers of combustion engines are now giving their products the ability to hold a greater electrical charge? What is that in Coulombs? I guess I must be pretty severely misunderstanding how engines work.
Here's the thing: by borrowing vocabulary to use in entirely new fields, we make those ideas more easily and intimately understandable. In fact, for the past several centuries, the majority of new technical terms are borrowed from older sources, including your "supercharger" example. So why don't you calm down, and in the future, if you feel like being pedantic, you could at least try to be right about it.
(Yes, yes, the parent poster was being unnecessarily hyperbolic and probably didn't even know what he was talking about. My point still stands.)
Rape victims are often left with psychological trauma that they won't be able to get past for a long, long time, if ever.
And murder victims have an easier time recovering from their trauma?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're probably male, and most likely never encountered a rape victim, possibly never known anybody who has known a rape victim.
You seem to believe that, because the parent thinks there's one thing out there in the vast world that is worse than being raped, he doesn't take rape seriously enough. You have no basis for this assumption, and your characterization of him is unreasonable. I have close friends who were raped, and one of the closest people in the world to me was murdered. I've seen the devastation wrought by both, and nobody should have to experience either. But I believe that murder is worse. Will I get your ridicule as well?
it logically follows that human choice is a consequence of biology and the environment that biology is responding too.
This is reasonable.
there is nothing free about it.
This is not reasonable, and doesn't follow.
The problem you run into with this kind of "reasoning" is that you can use it to doubt free will no matter what the supposed source is. For example:
"Human beings are exactly as the gods made them. It therefore follows that human choice only exists insofar as it was perscribed by the gods. There's nothing free about it."
See the problem?
You also list three hypothetical factors that can influence the behavior of humans:
1) biology
2) environment
3) history ( conditioning)
Can you really give a compelling historical example of a person making choices outside of the realm of what is reasonable based on these three? I submit that you cannot.
For the record, I believe that free will is an emergent property of the biology of the human brain. Modern neuroscience backs me up, or at least is getting there. It's also possible that we believe in different versions of "free will", and perhaps I don't even believe in "free will" as you would define it. It's all rather academic, though, because there is no important distinction between free will and the illusion of it.
Did you meet one foolish overly emotional vegetarian in your life, and assume they're all the same way?
Here is the first of many, many save the lobster sites I found. I think you'll find that the world is full of animal rights activists with well thought out, internally consistent beliefs.
The studios don't really know how to market interesting and unusual movies. See also: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the trailers for which made it look like a buddy comedy.
Fight Club is definitely worth seeing. Also, all of Chuck Palahniuk's books are worth reading.
I think it's pretty obvious that I read your post, given that I responded to nearly every line in it. Did you actually read what I wrote, instead of skimming it for the parts you didn't like so you could throw a little tantrum? Did you see the parts in which I mostly agreed with you?
Did you see the part where I was at work and didn't have time to look this stuff up right then?
Did you see the part where that criticism only applied to a single, poorly chosen item on your list? The one that you had the time to make an extra reply to your own post to include? The way you phrased that item made you seem strongly anti-rational, by assuming a study is flawed because you don't agree with its conclusion. The sentence you quote was me giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since you didn't have time, as you said, to elaborate, you probably should have left that one off.
I never disputed the fact that the planet is warming; I was talking about the way the (Left-wing) alarmists are abusing the science for their own political agenda.
You called global warming a "hoax." Can you at least see where your poor choice of words might make your meaning unclear?
Jeeeezzzzz.... some people's kids.
I think my reply was rational and even-handed. Clearly I gave you more credit than you deserve.
A list of things does not a credible argument make, but I'll do my best anyway. I also don't particularly want to come off like I'm defending "the left", It's more my desire to defend science itself against those who would use its abuses to discredit the entire endeavor.
The scaremongering surrounding food preservation by irradiation; The attack against nuclear power; The Alar scare; The pseudoscience surrounding Spotted Owls vs. responsible forest management in the Pacific Northwest (United States);
These are all abuses of popular opinion, presented under the veil of science, and perpitrated by factions of what the unsubtle might refer to as "the left". You're right about them being bad things, and they should certainly be opposed. But those are disparate events, and mostly misinterpretations of science, rather than a concerted effort to oppose science itself, which is what we've seen from Bush.
The attack against genetically modified food crops;
There's been some scaremongering here, but GM crops have a few very real issues, mostly relating to cross-breeding in the wild and patents. At the very least, the issue deserves much more intelligent review in government (HA!) than it's gotten.
The attack against DDT;
DDT is bad stuff, and it doesn't even work anymore. A significant part of the mosquito population is resistant to it. The attacks against it were well-deserved.
And... how can we forget? The current scaremongering via the "global warming" hoax.
Now you're just being silly. Most of the real scientific debate about global warming concerns the degree to which it's caused by human action, what it's effects will be on the climate, and what, if anything, can be done to stop it. The "debate" over whether it's happening at all exists only in the minds of people who desperately don't want it to be true because of some inconvenient economics.
Dr. Arthur Kellerman. This guy is the grand-daddy of them all with his "research" claiming to show that "a gun in the home is X times more likely to kill a loved one than prevent a crime".
I've never heard of him. Even though I'm a strong second-amendment supporter, your inclusion of this seems like the work of someone who rejects any emperical evidence that disagrees with his preconcieved notions. If this isn't the case, and his research is indeed flawed, saying why might make you sound better. Personally, I've heard this claim before and never had cause to doubt it. I've just never thought banning guns was an acceptable solution to the problem of people using them irresponsably.
For this solution to work, you don't need to identify the first individual in the history of bird ancestry that can be rightly called a chicken, you just have to assume that it exists.
No matter what reasonable criteria you use to distinguish between "chickens" and "not chickens" (and there's no denying that there's lots of room for argument here), such an individual exists that was the first to meet those criteria. And it hatched from an egg.
That is an analogy created to explain the phenomenon to the layman. Since it's highly unlikely that the analogy itself is the basis of their work, debunking the analogy does nothing to show that their idea isn't feasable.
There are experts in every language that are very capable of emulating almost anything--without many bugs... how much work and time goes into this is a variant, however.
Technically correct, but not useful. Consider that for almost all software projects, the amount of work and time available is limited. Given this, it's fair to say that a language that requires a lot of time to weed out bugs is more "error prone" than a language that does not.
Just like before, you're assuming the options are mutually exclusive when they're not. Either of these questions is valid, just as "number of bugs" and "amount of bugs" are both correct. And if you really want to know how many "atoms of salt" I have, it's fairly trivial to estimate:
(mass of salt (g)) / (22.99 g/mol Na + 35.45 g/mol Cl) * (6.022e23) * 2
"amount, noun: a quantity of something, typically the total of a thing or things in number, size, value, or extent."
Also, you might want to look at recent advances in atomic theory. This young fellow, Dalton I think is his name, has a most interesting hypothesis about matter being made of indivisible (and countable) units. Marvelous!
Sometimes, I'm jealous of people who see the world in terms of absolutes. If I could just see everything as black or white, with no space for gray areas, I'd have to do a lot less thinking.
Safari is debatebly a very decent browser, but it's not customizable like IE is in Windows.
It's not?
There is no activeX,
No, since that's a Microsoft-specific technology. But there's Java, which can accomplish the same things without being so insecure.
registry,
Nope, but there's an equivalent in the form of plist files in various places. I don't see what the system method for storing configuration information has to do with exploitability, though...
plugins, etc.,
Oh yes there are. Of course, an insecure plugin can introduce a vulnerability on any OS, but that's somewhat moot because on OS X (and on Windows, as far as I know) it's not possible to install a browser plugin without the user's permission.
This is really how the majority of software in OS X is.
No, it isn't. Look at AppleScript, and how most OS X applications support it. Look at the system-wide frameworks like CoreData, Bonjour, and many others that can be brought into apps with little effort.
OS X avoids a lot of the design mistakes Windows has made in the past, but that doesn't mean it's not exploitable. This is a point you fail to address in your post full of maddening ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
I have one. I keep it next to my Virtual Boy. (No, I'm not joking.)
:)
Nice to meet you
I'm confused. So manufacturers of combustion engines are now giving their products the ability to hold a greater electrical charge? What is that in Coulombs? I guess I must be pretty severely misunderstanding how engines work.
Here's the thing: by borrowing vocabulary to use in entirely new fields, we make those ideas more easily and intimately understandable. In fact, for the past several centuries, the majority of new technical terms are borrowed from older sources, including your "supercharger" example. So why don't you calm down, and in the future, if you feel like being pedantic, you could at least try to be right about it.
(Yes, yes, the parent poster was being unnecessarily hyperbolic and probably didn't even know what he was talking about. My point still stands.)
It's not "nothing in right mouse clicks!", it's "Nothing only in right mouse clicks!". There's a world of difference there.
This is reasonable.
This is not reasonable, and doesn't follow. The problem you run into with this kind of "reasoning" is that you can use it to doubt free will no matter what the supposed source is. For example: "Human beings are exactly as the gods made them. It therefore follows that human choice only exists insofar as it was perscribed by the gods. There's nothing free about it." See the problem? You also list three hypothetical factors that can influence the behavior of humans:
Can you really give a compelling historical example of a person making choices outside of the realm of what is reasonable based on these three? I submit that you cannot.
For the record, I believe that free will is an emergent property of the biology of the human brain. Modern neuroscience backs me up, or at least is getting there. It's also possible that we believe in different versions of "free will", and perhaps I don't even believe in "free will" as you would define it. It's all rather academic, though, because there is no important distinction between free will and the illusion of it.
Did you meet one foolish overly emotional vegetarian in your life, and assume they're all the same way?
Here is the first of many, many save the lobster sites I found. I think you'll find that the world is full of animal rights activists with well thought out, internally consistent beliefs.
The studios don't really know how to market interesting and unusual movies. See also: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the trailers for which made it look like a buddy comedy.
Fight Club is definitely worth seeing. Also, all of Chuck Palahniuk's books are worth reading.
That was a good one. The password turns out to be 11001001. Though one byte is about as non-complex as a password can get.
It sort of is. It comes from a Czech word which can mean "forced labor".
I think it's pretty obvious that I read your post, given that I responded to nearly every line in it. Did you actually read what I wrote, instead of skimming it for the parts you didn't like so you could throw a little tantrum? Did you see the parts in which I mostly agreed with you?
Did you see the part where I was at work and didn't have time to look this stuff up right then?
Did you see the part where that criticism only applied to a single, poorly chosen item on your list? The one that you had the time to make an extra reply to your own post to include? The way you phrased that item made you seem strongly anti-rational, by assuming a study is flawed because you don't agree with its conclusion. The sentence you quote was me giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since you didn't have time, as you said, to elaborate, you probably should have left that one off.
I never disputed the fact that the planet is warming; I was talking about the way the (Left-wing) alarmists are abusing the science for their own political agenda.
You called global warming a "hoax." Can you at least see where your poor choice of words might make your meaning unclear?
Jeeeezzzzz.... some people's kids.
I think my reply was rational and even-handed. Clearly I gave you more credit than you deserve.
A list of things does not a credible argument make, but I'll do my best anyway. I also don't particularly want to come off like I'm defending "the left", It's more my desire to defend science itself against those who would use its abuses to discredit the entire endeavor.
The scaremongering surrounding food preservation by irradiation;
The attack against nuclear power;
The Alar scare;
The pseudoscience surrounding Spotted Owls vs. responsible forest management in the Pacific Northwest (United States);
These are all abuses of popular opinion, presented under the veil of science, and perpitrated by factions of what the unsubtle might refer to as "the left". You're right about them being bad things, and they should certainly be opposed. But those are disparate events, and mostly misinterpretations of science, rather than a concerted effort to oppose science itself, which is what we've seen from Bush.
The attack against genetically modified food crops;
There's been some scaremongering here, but GM crops have a few very real issues, mostly relating to cross-breeding in the wild and patents. At the very least, the issue deserves much more intelligent review in government (HA!) than it's gotten.
The attack against DDT;
DDT is bad stuff, and it doesn't even work anymore. A significant part of the mosquito population is resistant to it. The attacks against it were well-deserved.
And... how can we forget? The current scaremongering via the "global warming" hoax.
Now you're just being silly. Most of the real scientific debate about global warming concerns the degree to which it's caused by human action, what it's effects will be on the climate, and what, if anything, can be done to stop it. The "debate" over whether it's happening at all exists only in the minds of people who desperately don't want it to be true because of some inconvenient economics.
Dr. Arthur Kellerman. This guy is the grand-daddy of them all with his "research" claiming to show that "a gun in the home is X times more likely to kill a loved one than prevent a crime".
I've never heard of him. Even though I'm a strong second-amendment supporter, your inclusion of this seems like the work of someone who rejects any emperical evidence that disagrees with his preconcieved notions. If this isn't the case, and his research is indeed flawed, saying why might make you sound better. Personally, I've heard this claim before and never had cause to doubt it. I've just never thought banning guns was an acceptable solution to the problem of people using them irresponsably.
For this solution to work, you don't need to identify the first individual in the history of bird ancestry that can be rightly called a chicken, you just have to assume that it exists. No matter what reasonable criteria you use to distinguish between "chickens" and "not chickens" (and there's no denying that there's lots of room for argument here), such an individual exists that was the first to meet those criteria. And it hatched from an egg.
That is an analogy created to explain the phenomenon to the layman. Since it's highly unlikely that the analogy itself is the basis of their work, debunking the analogy does nothing to show that their idea isn't feasable.
Why would the Klingons care? They're not the ones we have the one-sided no-cloaking treaty with.
There are experts in every language that are very capable of emulating almost anything--without many bugs ... how much work and time goes into this is a variant, however.
Technically correct, but not useful. Consider that for almost all software projects, the amount of work and time available is limited. Given this, it's fair to say that a language that requires a lot of time to weed out bugs is more "error prone" than a language that does not.
now you want them to jump straight into developing the OS?
They should have that option, should they choose to exercise it. Why impose artificial restrictions just because they're poor?
It's different because it's legal. Look up "right of first sale", and also consider that no copy is being made in the transaction.
As for moral difference, that's very subjective. I don't see one, because I don't consider downloading mp3s to be immoral.
If you have a Mac with an IR port, you really should do this. It will also solve your problem in a way that makes hacking the source unnecessary.
3.5Gigabits can easily be compressed to 1.65gbps losslessly.
That depends on the entropy in the signal. It's not a guarantee.
(mass of salt (g)) / (22.99 g/mol Na + 35.45 g/mol Cl) * (6.022e23) * 2
Also, you might want to look at recent advances in atomic theory. This young fellow, Dalton I think is his name, has a most interesting hypothesis about matter being made of indivisible (and countable) units. Marvelous!
Ever try uninstalling a Symantec product on Windows? I'd say the fault lies squarely with Symantec, and not Apple or Microsoft.
Sometimes, I'm jealous of people who see the world in terms of absolutes. If I could just see everything as black or white, with no space for gray areas, I'd have to do a lot less thinking.
How's it working out for you?
Safari is debatebly a very decent browser, but it's not customizable like IE is in Windows.
It's not?
There is no activeX,
No, since that's a Microsoft-specific technology. But there's Java, which can accomplish the same things without being so insecure.
registry,
Nope, but there's an equivalent in the form of plist files in various places. I don't see what the system method for storing configuration information has to do with exploitability, though...
plugins, etc.,
Oh yes there are. Of course, an insecure plugin can introduce a vulnerability on any OS, but that's somewhat moot because on OS X (and on Windows, as far as I know) it's not possible to install a browser plugin without the user's permission.
This is really how the majority of software in OS X is.
No, it isn't. Look at AppleScript, and how most OS X applications support it. Look at the system-wide frameworks like CoreData, Bonjour, and many others that can be brought into apps with little effort.
OS X avoids a lot of the design mistakes Windows has made in the past, but that doesn't mean it's not exploitable. This is a point you fail to address in your post full of maddening ignorance.