Wednesday, May 25, 2011

headings in paper

headings in paper. The prescribed heading are as
  • The prescribed heading are as



  • carmenodie
    Mar 18, 08:14 AM
    I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
    What's next? Charging per effing electron?





    headings in paper. Headings for general text
  • Headings for general text



  • GGJstudios
    May 4, 10:33 AM
    Did you read about this solution on Apple web site? Not everybody reads MacRumors.
    If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.





    headings in paper. headings, Czech text.
  • headings, Czech text.



  • UnixMac
    Oct 9, 05:51 PM
    Bottom line.......Macs are over priced....we just keep buying them and so why would the accountants want to change that gig?





    headings in paper. chapter heading of japan
  • chapter heading of japan



  • TheSlush
    Oct 8, 11:11 AM
    Gartner's crazy.





    headings in paper. Museo Slab headings with
  • Museo Slab headings with



  • thogs_cave
    Jul 12, 11:53 AM
    your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.

    Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.

    (And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)





    headings in paper. The text of the paper begins
  • The text of the paper begins



  • Tymmz
    Aug 29, 11:02 AM
    That's weird.


    A couple years ago the number one german ECO-magazine "�ko Test" put the iBook at the pole position of (non-) toxic laptops.

    They compared the materials and the exhaust fumes.

    I'm not 100% sure, but I think I remember that fact correctly.





    headings in paper. outlines, paper headings,
  • outlines, paper headings,



  • BJNY
    Oct 14, 08:21 AM
    HP to announced quad-core workstations on Nov. 13th

    http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/13/quadcore/index.php





    headings in paper. sub-headings h h written
  • sub-headings h h written



  • Multimedia
    Oct 2, 06:07 PM
    Since the 2.33GHz Clovertown processors are priced the same as the 3GHz Woodcrests - $851, I think it's fair to say the current 3GHz Quad Core Mac Pro costs about $825 per core while the 8-core 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pros will cost only about $412.50 per core. That looks like real progress to me. On the GHz front, the current one running @ 12GHz is about $275 per GHz of power while the 8-core running @ 18.64GHz is about $177 per GHz of power. That looks like real progress as well. :)





    headings in paper. Using heading 1, heading 2 in
  • Using heading 1, heading 2 in



  • bigwig
    Oct 27, 06:08 PM
    Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?
    I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.





    headings in paper. headings, some text and
  • headings, some text and



  • capvideo
    Mar 20, 01:32 PM
    It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).

    No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.

    Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.

    But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.

    This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.

    For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.

    In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.

    When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.

    This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.

    I rant much more about this at my blog:

    http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9

    Jerry





    headings in paper. apa style headings. APA PAPER
  • apa style headings. APA PAPER



  • Carl Spackler
    Sep 12, 04:29 PM
    Will it support third party codecs?
    Does it have an internal flash drive?
    Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
    Do I need a separate computer to use it?

    So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?


    I don't know why it wouldn't. Isn't iTunes basically and interface for Quicktime? I would imagine anything one can play in QT, you can play through this.

    All it is is Apple's version of a media extender. I would, however, like an optical drive, but I can't see the price staying at $299 if they add Blu Ray. Otherwise, I think it's a fair price for a quality piece of equipment. Roku's SoundBridge M2000 is $299. For the same price I get to also sent 1080p content to my home theatre. Sign me up.





    headings in paper. headings, and text—as well
  • headings, and text—as well



  • syklee26
    Sep 12, 03:51 PM
    is this iTV thingee going to have wireless router function? then it replaces airport express. if not, then no.





    headings in paper. and watercolor paper,
  • and watercolor paper,



  • 200paul
    Sep 12, 03:32 PM
    There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subsribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.

    In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.





    headings in paper. and watercolor paper,
  • and watercolor paper,



  • WiiDSmoker
    Apr 20, 09:31 PM
    No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.

    So this site is for fanboys only?





    headings in paper. of aexample heading or
  • of aexample heading or



  • Popeye206
    Apr 15, 09:20 AM
    This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.

    Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.





    headings in paper. heading of Paper-making
  • heading of Paper-making



  • Huntn
    Apr 25, 12:30 PM
    Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.

    This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.

    I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.

    It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.

    You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.

    Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.

    Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.

    Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.

    The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).

    We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.

    For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)





    headings in paper. Teaching headings the mar
  • Teaching headings the mar



  • fixyourthinking
    Sep 20, 10:22 AM
    http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

    Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.

    Ironically the set top box was "field tested" at Disneyland in California. It was going to be a movie/cableTV and shopping kiosk in your hotel room via your TV.

    I own several of these boxes and the hard drives contained videos of Disneyland and shopping.





    headings in paper. paper headings
  • paper headings



  • leekohler
    Apr 23, 08:42 AM
    Hey- Macs "just work" right? Well, a lot of us apply that motto to our lives. For most of us, religion does not "just work". But people can believe what they want.





    headings in paper. iso paper sizes Paper sizes
  • iso paper sizes Paper sizes



  • Edge100
    Apr 15, 12:38 PM
    I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?

    This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.

    What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.

    The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."

    THAT would be a reasonable message.

    If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.

    Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.

    I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.

    I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.

    Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.

    You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.

    One is actually rape, the other isn't.

    No, rape is rape.

    But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?





    Bill McEnaney
    Mar 27, 04:50 PM
    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.
    What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these? When I discuss rights with liberal, they seldom say what kinds of rights they're talking about, and they never tell me what a right is as such. Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly. To see why, talk with a few postmodernists who refuse to define their jargon. They refuse to define it because they want to keep reinterpreting it.

    This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
    Sorry, I wrote impulsively and didn't proofread what I wrote. Some here say there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological and/or environmental causes. I think it has both. But it's one thing to say that there's no evidence for what someone believes. It's something else to say that, although there is such evidence, no one has discovered it yet.





    edifyingGerbil
    Apr 24, 03:16 PM
    Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.

    I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.

    I explained what Sharia law is.

    In your first paragraph you support my view that Islam is a threat to democracy, so many thanks.


    Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.



    CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.

    Rebuttal provided.


    no, they were of iraqi origin. this happened in the US, the father has been sentenced to jail.

    it's not cultural if it transcends so much space, it's inherent in the teachings of the religion. allah is a bloodthirsty god





    steebu
    Oct 25, 10:24 PM
    Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon?





    NebulaClash
    Apr 28, 08:23 AM
    That's pretty much the definition of a fad.

    Fads refer to a period of time, not its popularity during that time. For the iPad to be a fad, it will have to lose its popularity over the next year or so.





    latergator116
    Mar 19, 05:59 PM
    Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.

    Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.

    Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.



    No comments:

    Post a Comment