Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About brainbone

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Geek
  1. VoodooHDA

    Figured it out. If loading VoodooHDA from /Extra/Extensions, it needs IOAudioFamily.kext and OSvKernDSPLib.kext copied from /System/Library/Extensions -- or just put VoodooHDA in /System/Library/Extensions. Now onto sorting out speedstep..
  2. VoodooHDA

    Trying to get my SigmaTel 9200 working, I've tired just about every VoodooHDA for 10.6 I can find, including 252 from Slice. All report the following during boot: Kext org.voodoo.driver.VoodooHDA - library kext com.apple.iokit.IOAudioFamily not found. Can't load kext org.voodoo.driver.VoodooHDA - failed to resolve library dependencies. Kext org.voodoo.driver.VoodooHDA failed to load (0xdc00800e). Failed to load kext org.voodoo.driver.VoodooHDA (error 0xdc00800e). Couldn't alloc class "VoodooHDADevice" Even tried building my own from the 252 source, and still end up with the same results as above. Details on my configuration here. Any ideas on how to resolve this?
  3. Sigmatel 9200 HDA Audio in Snow Leopard

    According to the osx86 wiki, apparently someone has gotten the SigmaTel 9200 in the Dell D820 working in SL... but I'm not able to make any progress. I'm looking for any assistance with getting the audio working in my D820. I have some of my D820 up and running (typing this from it) on 10.6.2 "vanilla" 32bit using: Bootloader: Booter_AsereBLN_v1.1.7 arch=i386 GraphicsEnabler=y (Geforce GO 7400) Kexts in /Extra/Extensions: ApplePS2Controller.kext AppleACPIPS2Nub.kext AppleBCM5751Ethernet.kext MP41SpeedStepFix.kext HPETDevice.kext EvOreboot.kext fakesmc.kext PlatformUUID.kext VoodooTSCSync.kext What's working: Trackpad Keyboard Graphics (only in 32bit/i386) Both cores WIFI Bluetooth What's not: Speed Step Audio Built-in ethernet 64bit (10.6.2 panics in 64bit with the 7xxx graphics cards) What I've tried, and failed on, for audio: Various DSDT patches (not exactly sure what I'm doing here) VoodooHDA (many different versions) HDAEnabler So far, no audio at all. Anyone care to help push me in the right direction?
  4. Dell Vostro A860 w X3100 drivers working fix

    You need to build your own DSDT. I followed similar instructions to the ones in this post. This works on 10.5.7 without the sleep trick, or external monitor. Starting here: Note: Before you do the above, make sure you have not booted with a DSDT.aml from another system (delete any DSDT in the root of your HD), or your resulting DSDT will be a derivative of that DSDT, not the one in your a860's bios.
  5. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    Averaged out, it has also been true that women always held less power in the relationship. If tradition is to win out in the end, then we should roll back any of the ground women have recently gained. Look, you're doing it again. There is no evidence that children brought up by two men, or two women are any less well adjusted than a man and a woman. "Common sense" tells you that you cannot transpose results from single parent families onto {censored} families. "Common sense" tells you that studies overwhelmingly show that the economic standing of a family is more important to the children turning out well adjusted than anything else. "Common sense" would tell you that if you want to use ones ability to raise children as "evidence" against their right to marry, then you should also deny that right to others that may also have trouble raising well adjusted children, like those with a lower economic standing. Yes. I have countered your "evidence". Unfortunately, you're unable to understand the argument. There is no evidence that replacing "bride and groom" with "party a and party b" on a legal document does anything to destroy heterosexual marriage. This is simply another unsubstantiated fear. That you are unable to understand this is troubling. If you were not religious, you would not have this fear of {censored} marriage, so yes... your fear is rooted in your religion. You didn't answer my questions in my previous post, 1-9.
  6. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    The "state" says just that. If you get married, it will not be legally recognized. Are you saying that you don't understand the difference between a legally recognized marriage and one that is not? Say it was decided that you couldn't legally marry an appropriate and consenting member of the opposite sex, for whatever reason. Would you be happy with a non-legal marraige? Would you "Just do it, and shut up"? Or might you have just a little bit of rage toward those that denied you your right?
  7. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    Ok, then what is "Marriage"? You want to "preserve the definition [institution] of marriage" that has existed for "thousands" of years. Well, lets see what has defined marriages for "thousands of years". Since marriage has rapidly changed in definition over that last few hundred years or so, I think we should leave that out, being only a drop in the bucket when averaged over that last "thousands": Marriage started out, and persisted until relatively recently, as a simple property exchange. Women being the property. This is the backbone of the "man and women" of marriage. Since women are the property and men are the property owners, you can't very well have property owning property, or property owners owning other property owners. If you think about it, it keeps things simple. It keeps the woman submitted, and makes the unions very strong -- unless the man tires of the woman -- then he simply kills her, or sells her. Now, if you don't like that, you certainly aren't taking your definition from that last "thousands" of years, so please answer me ALL of these questions: 1) Exactly from what and when are you really taking your "definition" of "marriage"? 2) How long has that definition actually been stable? 3) What makes a "Marriage"? 4) What makes a marriage of a man and a woman better than a same sex marriage? 5) Better for whom? 6) Who is hurt by {censored} marriage? 6a) How? 7) Is that "hurt" more important than the "hurt" inflicted on the {censored} community by not allowing them the legal right to marry? 7a) Why? 8) Are there any other heterosexual couples that can cause the same or similar "harm" to the "institution of marriage" by allowing them the right to marry? 8a) Do they have that right now? 8b) Should they be able to keep it? 8bi) Why? 9) Where is the evidence for your answers to the above? I've already torn down your previous "findings". Please, give me something substantial, or give substantial arguments on each "finding" you choose to recycle, pointing to why my reasoning for the invalidity of your "findings" appear in error.
  8. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    Yes. That is what its about. They don't have the same rights. They may be able to approximate them in some states though much legal maneuvering, but that is not the same. As long as their relationship is not universally accepted as legal, with the same legal rights as a heterosexual marriage, they will never have the same rights. You personally never have to approve of their relationship, but you do need to accept that whom they choose to marry is their choice -- not yours. So, in the end, for you, it comes to the "definition" of the word marriage. But, the definition of the word marriage has always been evolving. It wasn't long ago that a woman did not have the same rights as a man in a "marriage". Interracial marriages were not recognized long ago. Slaves were not allowed to marry. If homosexuals actually have all the rights you speak of, then, the relationships they have today will be causing all the same trouble you fear from changing the "definition of marriage". If the damage is already done, preserving the "definition of marriage" is an exercise in futility. If the damage hasn't been done, then you obviously are all about withholding rights from the {censored} community. There is evidence that marriages of the low income are not as good as those in the middle class. Should these no longer be recognize? There is evidence that interracial marriages can often be difficult on the children. Should these no longer be recognize? How about marriages of the disabled. They certainly have more trouble caring for their children. How about the extremely wealthy. They have a very high divorce rate. Perhaps if you have too high an income you shouldn't be allowed to marry... ... ... If you honestly want to use "as good as heterosexual marriages" as a benchmark for marraige, then you need to apply that to the full spectrum. You need to isolate and quantify EXACTLY what makes the {censored} marriage not as good as the heterosexual marriage, and then apply that universally. You've started your list, but haven't done enough home work to isolate the real cause. You've stopped at superficial similarities to past studies of unrelated situations. Keep going. Find out what is wrong with the homosexual marraige. What is going to make it ruin heterosexual marriages? Please. I need to know the answer. What else must we stop in order to save marriage!? I don't think stopping {censored} marriage is enough! Divorce rates continue to rise. Education rates continue to drop. Crime continues to increase. There has to be a problem with the institution of marriage -- something has infected it, and as a result eroded our perfect society. Please help me find this cause! Wait... you know what the problem just may be??? Inequality.
  9. Are Mormons Christians?

    I think it could certainly be argued that the majority of Christians are ignorant of the relation their own religious texts/stories have with that of others throughout history. More concerning is that the majority would also choose to stay ignorant of this when presented with an opportunity to learn more about this history and origins of their religion, rejecting any alternate views out of hand.
  10. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    As I pointed out above, the arguments are not rational. They transpose studies from unrelated situations to that of homosexual couples parenting. Further, the flawed arguments imply that being a bad parent disqualifies you from marraige, as does risking your preconceived child's well being through genetic malformation of your own.
  11. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    All studies that say children suffer from not having a father or mother come from SINGLE PARENT families. There is not enough data to conclude that two parent, same sex families have the same or similar problems to single parent families. No conclusion can be drawn here. There is no evidence that {censored} marriage would increase or decrease this situation. {censored} couples adopt now and have children via surrogates now, even when not married. This is an argument for/against surrogates and adoption, not marraige. Again, based of data from SINGLE PARENT families. You cannot transpose those result to two parent, same sex families. All this does is re-affirm the fact that there is not enough data from same-sex families to draw any conclusions, positive or negative. If a fear is not yet substantiated, it holds no weight. It must be backed up before presenting it as a proper reason. This unsubstantiated fear also brings up many moral questions. Is it not OK then for Type 1 diabetics to have children because it may increase the risk of the children having diabetes? Should diabetics now not be able to be married? How about <insert disease here>? Also, is homosexuality now to be perceive and classified as a disease? Do you care to solve any of these before trying to go down this road? Again. Homosexual couples are having children now, married or not. Homosexual couples are having ceremonies of marraige, even while not legally recognized, now. No, this is not well-substantiated. It is baseless fear. There has not been enough data collected on same sex families to draw any conclusion, as has already been admitted. Procreation is one of YOUR main reasons for having a family. There are MANY heterosexual married couples without children. There are many heterosexual couples with children that are not married. There are many heterosexual couples that are married and yet are unable to procreate. Nothing as been substantiated here. What data can you cite that shows a direct correlation couples being married that are unable to procreate damaging marriages that do procreate? Yes, and as such should not be expressed as a "reason to ban {censored} marriage". {censored} men generally earn more than their heterosexual counterpart. They also seem to self-domesticate. As a landlord, I prefer to rent to {censored} men. They tend leave the apartment in much better condition than their heterosexual counterpart. And, on their rental applications, the average income of {censored} men is certainly higher. Nearly every point made implies that {censored} couples are less qualified as parents than heterosexual couples. Be it because the children are not their biological children, or that that the child doesn't have a father, or a mother, or the parent doesn't have enough money or isn't domesticated enough, etc. It ignores the point that the main qualification for being a parent is being a good parent. It cites no studies showing the percentage of {censored} couples raising well adjusted children vs. heterosexual couples. Without any studies to reinforce your claim, you have no leg to stand on. You need to show studies having X same sex couples with children. Y of them produced well adjusted children, Z of them did not. Then compare the percentages with heterosexual couples, using the same criteria. If multiple studies show that in the end, {censored} couples produce less well adjusted children than heterosexual, then we can start a conversation about the percentage of minority families that product less well adjusted children, the legality of their marriage, and how much harm their marriage inflicts on yours. No. The harm has not been articulated, only the fear.
  12. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    By unsubstantiated, I mean exactly what I said in my responses. There is either not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or, not enough evidence to draw a conclusion that the fear is related to {censored} marriage. Take #2 "Children need fathers", for example. The fear is that {censored} marriage will produce more {censored} families having children without fathers than there is today. First, there is no evidence that this would happen. Second, there is no evidence that the children from monogamous {censored} families are any less well adjusted than those that are not. The evidence cited comes from single mother families -- a different dynamic altogether than a {censored} couple. The fear has no factual bases. It uses studies from unrelated situations and quotes from others with the same baseless fear as evidence. Third, it uses a "qualification as parents" as a qualification for marriage. If this were the case, there are many more heterosexual couples that shouldn't be married as well, but it is perfectly legal for these hetrosexual "bad parents" to be married -- and as a parent, I run into countless numbers of them every day. The same basic issues are systemic through all ten "reasons" given. So no, they are not "backed up". They are not even well thought trough.
  13. The Useful idiot

    More decision making based on unsubstantiated fear. Wonderful. Just what the world needs more of.
  14. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    Yes he did. As did I. However, the link you provided only highlighted unsubstantiated fears of what homosexual marriage may do. I gave a point by point rebuttal. You haven't been able to respond to that. Yes. I agree. So, you should not weaken same-sex marriage.
  15. Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

    And here's something else: http://watersofmormon.org/archive/2008/05/...y-marriage.aspx And to pick the frc.org "arguments" apart point by point: This is an argument against IVF and surrogate mothers, not same sex marriage. Hetrosexual couple use IVF and surrogate mothers more often than Homosexual. Cross this off the list. {censored} couples can still have children without being married. They just need a suitable source of sperm. This is not an argument against {censored} marriage, but rather an argument against lesbians having the right to bear children. Cross it off the list. Same as the argument above. This is against {censored} men having the right to raise children. Cross it off the list. Lack of evidence doesn't make an argument. Cross it off the list. There is zero evidence to back this up. It is based on fear with no research. Cross it off the list. Again, there is no evidence to back this up. It is based on fear with no research. Cross it off the list. Again, there is no evidence to back this up. It is based on fear with no research. Further, the fear of the impact on what same sex marriage may have on the children produced by same sex marriage speaks to the contrary. First, they fear that same sex marriage will produce messed up children, then they fear that same sex marriage won't produce enough children. Ridiculous. Cross it off the list. This is not an argument against same-sex marriage, but rather an argument for social support of marriage. Cross it off the list. This is not an argument against {censored} marriage, but rather a longing for the time when a woman would "know her role". This is an argument against equal right for women, not {censored} marriage. Cross it off the list. Again, not an argument against {censored} marriage. Ignored {censored} couples, citing no studies of married {censored} men with children. Baseless fear with no real argument. Cross it off the list. So, I ask again: What good comes from "preserving the definition of marriage"?