Ravich
May 4, 05:41 PM
It's not the Red Cross. It's the FDA. Last time the policy went up for review in 2006 or so, it was voted 7 against 6 to stay in place.
And for anyone wondering, the wording is something along the lines of "if you are a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1977, or if you are a woman who has had sexual contact with a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1997, you are prohibited from donating blood."
I think a basic level of intelligence indicates how wrong and prejudiced this is.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm
According to statistics, black men are more than 6 times more likely than white men to become infected with HIV, but you sure as hell dont see people supporting banning black people from donating blood. Why? Simply because it is more socially acceptable to be homophobic than it is to be racist.
Edit: I just wanted to make this clear: there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for blood donations, regardless of who may or may not be present. Donating blood saves lives. There is a problematic policy in place in the US and other countries at the moment, but that never has and never will make asking for people to donate blood problematic in any way, shape, or form.
And for anyone wondering, the wording is something along the lines of "if you are a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1977, or if you are a woman who has had sexual contact with a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1997, you are prohibited from donating blood."
I think a basic level of intelligence indicates how wrong and prejudiced this is.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm
According to statistics, black men are more than 6 times more likely than white men to become infected with HIV, but you sure as hell dont see people supporting banning black people from donating blood. Why? Simply because it is more socially acceptable to be homophobic than it is to be racist.
Edit: I just wanted to make this clear: there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for blood donations, regardless of who may or may not be present. Donating blood saves lives. There is a problematic policy in place in the US and other countries at the moment, but that never has and never will make asking for people to donate blood problematic in any way, shape, or form.
Doctor Q
Feb 12, 02:21 PM
For reference, the MacRumors moderators are:AmbitiousLemon
bousozoku
Doctor Q
edesignuk
eyelikeart
Mr. Anderson
Mudbug
Nermal
Rower_CPU
WinterMuteYou can contact any of them using buttons at the bottom of the Show Groups (http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php?) page.
However, for reporting threads or posts that violate forum rules, please continue to use the Report Bad Post ( http://forums.macrumors.com/images/buttons/report.gif ) button next to the post, since this notifies whichever moderators are on duty.
Thank you.
bousozoku
Doctor Q
edesignuk
eyelikeart
Mr. Anderson
Mudbug
Nermal
Rower_CPU
WinterMuteYou can contact any of them using buttons at the bottom of the Show Groups (http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php?) page.
However, for reporting threads or posts that violate forum rules, please continue to use the Report Bad Post ( http://forums.macrumors.com/images/buttons/report.gif ) button next to the post, since this notifies whichever moderators are on duty.
Thank you.
gkarris
Nov 23, 10:44 PM
Discussed here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1047192
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1047192
ECUpirate44
Mar 4, 09:41 PM
Yeah, big boss and pay for them :rolleyes:
more...
santaliqueur
Apr 28, 08:03 PM
Looks like Apple picked on the wrong company. Give em' a bloody nose Sammy.
You spend a lot of time here trashing Apple. Care to share why you stick around? Seems like a waste of time for you.
You spend a lot of time here trashing Apple. Care to share why you stick around? Seems like a waste of time for you.
crude analogy
Jan 3, 01:43 AM
Great Story!
P.S., you must have very wealthy friends. Right on.
P.S., you must have very wealthy friends. Right on.
more...
Gem�tlichkeit
Dec 8, 08:53 AM
Just took this picture in Uppsala Sweden at the viking graves.
outerspaceapple
Aug 19, 11:47 AM
Hey all, this is my first entry. It reminds us why we all want/have iPods. :D
Good luck to all of you!
more...
Amores perros (2000) GHiA 3.64
Amores Perros(2000) rating(4/5
more...
Amores perros
Amores Perros (2000) 27 x 40
more...
Tema Amoras Perros - Gustavo
as Amores Perros (2000),
more...
“Amores Perros” (2000),
quot;Amores Perrosquot; (2000) de
more...
Amores Perros (2000) 720p
Amores Perros (2000)
Amores.perros.(2000).(English.
Good luck to all of you!
more...
Ries27
Aug 9, 03:04 PM
Here's mine...
robertnq
Oct 31, 10:10 AM
Appleinsider called this correctly then, I wonder if this will be the top selling iPod model this Christmas.
Sweet! Hopefully I can buy a few for gifts...
Note: This is my first comment! I feel so cool! :cool:
Sweet! Hopefully I can buy a few for gifts...
Note: This is my first comment! I feel so cool! :cool:
more...
saly2
Jul 9, 02:38 AM
let us see how you can buy the best and cheapest iphone 4!
dba7dba
May 1, 02:25 PM
Samsung is losing money in a lot of areas.
Delete
Delete
more...
Wooster
Jan 9, 07:08 PM
Nothig significant for the computer users.
No new monitors. No HD screens for MBPs. No new software or announcement.
:(
No new monitors. No HD screens for MBPs. No new software or announcement.
:(
nizmoz
Dec 28, 08:38 AM
Well said. I was going to start typing a similar post but glad you did. The person that replied to the OP above saying IT people are clueless is 100% wrong as you are the one that is clueless. I run a IT department and there is no way MACs would ever become the Computer of choice over any Windows machine that has way more software for the enterprise than a MAC will ever see. And using Bootcamp is a waste of funds as PCs are cheaper. It always takes someone who has no clue about how IT works to say something like that.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
more...
Glideslope
Feb 22, 06:04 PM
Is this supposed to be funny?
Shipping 4/4/11. :apple:
Shipping 4/4/11. :apple:
richimages
Apr 20, 03:38 PM
I had the original iPad on unlimited plan. Bought iPad 2, and followed the instructions from ATT rep ... just switch the sim cards.
I switched the sim cards first thing ... there was no plan associated with the new sim card before I switched it.
So all went well. My iPad 2 picked right up with my original unlimited plan.
But, my original iPad ... after the new sim card was inserted in it ... showed 3G service, with antenna strength reading. What was going on? I turned off both devices, did the switch, and turned them on ... I would have assumed booting up the original iPad would have recognized the new sim card, in fact, Settings -> General -> About -> Cellular Data Number was listed as "unknown", so it definitely should have been using the settings from the new sim card ... yet I had 3G access!
Did I only have the remainder of the current cycle's plan on the device? Could I have had unlimited data on both iPads?
Since I was selling my original iPad .... I did a reset to return it to factory settings .... however, when helping the buyers set up a 3G plan on the device, I saw that it really did not clear EVERYTHING out associated with my original plan .... as I had the two options: USE EXISTING PLAN or START A NEW PLAN.
That made me nervous ... they started a new plan of their own on their credit card, and, after that, the option to use the original plan seems to have went away.
All seems well ... and I was selling to relatives ... BUT, I'd like to know more details about all of this .... have others have similar experiences? Thanks for sharing.
I switched the sim cards first thing ... there was no plan associated with the new sim card before I switched it.
So all went well. My iPad 2 picked right up with my original unlimited plan.
But, my original iPad ... after the new sim card was inserted in it ... showed 3G service, with antenna strength reading. What was going on? I turned off both devices, did the switch, and turned them on ... I would have assumed booting up the original iPad would have recognized the new sim card, in fact, Settings -> General -> About -> Cellular Data Number was listed as "unknown", so it definitely should have been using the settings from the new sim card ... yet I had 3G access!
Did I only have the remainder of the current cycle's plan on the device? Could I have had unlimited data on both iPads?
Since I was selling my original iPad .... I did a reset to return it to factory settings .... however, when helping the buyers set up a 3G plan on the device, I saw that it really did not clear EVERYTHING out associated with my original plan .... as I had the two options: USE EXISTING PLAN or START A NEW PLAN.
That made me nervous ... they started a new plan of their own on their credit card, and, after that, the option to use the original plan seems to have went away.
All seems well ... and I was selling to relatives ... BUT, I'd like to know more details about all of this .... have others have similar experiences? Thanks for sharing.
more...
dmmcintyre3
Aug 18, 10:12 PM
I know you can just go converttoguide.php?=(postnumber) and it will convert that post to a guide but is there an easier way than pasting the post number on the end of it?
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:22 AM
I find it so damn funny that thousands were crying over not having Verizon. Now there's hardly anything positive from those whiners.
They are still expecting to sell 5 million.
They are still expecting to sell 5 million.
*sundek*
Apr 13, 07:51 AM
:D
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5294/bildschirmfoto20110413uy.png (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/bildschirmfoto20110413uy.png/)
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3828/bildschirmfoto20110413u.th.png (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/bildschirmfoto20110413u.png/)
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5294/bildschirmfoto20110413uy.png (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/bildschirmfoto20110413uy.png/)
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3828/bildschirmfoto20110413u.th.png (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/bildschirmfoto20110413u.png/)
gekko513
Nov 29, 12:30 PM
People who pirate movies wouldn't have bought the movie in the first place. Adding usage restrictions only hurts the customers who bought the movie. If the studios are worried people will transfer movies to their friend's iPods, then they probably have their heads in the sand regarding the swapping of DVDs.
Still, the concept of limiting consumers' rights is the issue at hand.
Perhaps not, but they may have rented them. I recently pirated a movie because I couldn't find it at the local rental place. I can't wait for online movie sales. I'm willing to pay as soon as the studios get their acts together and make it available to me, but you're right if the terms are too restrictive I won't bother buying online, either.
Still, the concept of limiting consumers' rights is the issue at hand.
Perhaps not, but they may have rented them. I recently pirated a movie because I couldn't find it at the local rental place. I can't wait for online movie sales. I'm willing to pay as soon as the studios get their acts together and make it available to me, but you're right if the terms are too restrictive I won't bother buying online, either.
zen.state
Apr 4, 11:19 AM
The only drives that really go above 15 watts are the 10,000+ rpm like the raptor but even then it's maybe 22 watts. The WD black I boot from is about 14 watts but the green from WD or any low powered drive can be as low as 8-9 watts. The average would be about 12.
latergator116
Jan 4, 08:14 PM
Cool. I just registered. alias is Nala722
Consultant
Feb 21, 04:26 PM
Most radio stations have streams that you can add yourself to iTunes.
Otherwise try apple.com/feedback
Otherwise try apple.com/feedback
Cepe Indicum
Jan 9, 04:54 PM
I'm with both sides on this argument.
Not the best Keynote I've ever seen, but then again, with such an impressive device like the iPhone (and I think most people are agreed on that), it would have been a very long Keynote if Steve had demo'd Leopard features as well. :rolleyes:
I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt, and wait for an announcement of another 'special event' in the near future. :) Hope so anyway.
Kind of a bitter-sweet day for me.
Not the best Keynote I've ever seen, but then again, with such an impressive device like the iPhone (and I think most people are agreed on that), it would have been a very long Keynote if Steve had demo'd Leopard features as well. :rolleyes:
I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt, and wait for an announcement of another 'special event' in the near future. :) Hope so anyway.
Kind of a bitter-sweet day for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment