lilo777
Apr 20, 08:44 PM
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiMax etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
There is no bugs or any magic there. If the file exists in the file system Windows will show it. Virus removal has nothing to do with it. Malicious files may be hidden in the files saved for restoring older states. "Virus" may be running special processes that keep something in RAM and then restore malicious files if the user removes them. There are all kinds of scenarios but they are not unique to Windows. Before Vista, Windows access right system was messed up but that's the past. There are no viruses in newer versions of Windows anymore.
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiMax etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
There is no bugs or any magic there. If the file exists in the file system Windows will show it. Virus removal has nothing to do with it. Malicious files may be hidden in the files saved for restoring older states. "Virus" may be running special processes that keep something in RAM and then restore malicious files if the user removes them. There are all kinds of scenarios but they are not unique to Windows. Before Vista, Windows access right system was messed up but that's the past. There are no viruses in newer versions of Windows anymore.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 01:10 PM
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
wnurse
Mar 18, 03:05 PM
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Really?. how?. Regardless of what apple does, it might be even easier for DVD Jon to break their new programming than for them to come up with new programming. Think about it. A company with a lot of paid developers getting outwitted by a guy with time on his hands. I think he wins everytime. Their cost to defeat him is astromnomical compared to his cost to defeat them.
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
One way around this problem would be to store the music in an encoded format and have itunes decode the music and wrap in DRM.
Unfortunately, that can be bypassed too. A competent enough person (example DVD jon) could intercept the process between decode and before DRM wrapping and deliver the music. Another way would be for itunes server to request itunes to send a key and then use that key to add DRM to the music on server before delivering to user, although then you could build a player that intercepted the key and uses it to remove the DRM.
I'm sure for every solution apple can think of, DVD jon can think of a way to defeat it. There might be no technical solution to the problem at all.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Really?. how?. Regardless of what apple does, it might be even easier for DVD Jon to break their new programming than for them to come up with new programming. Think about it. A company with a lot of paid developers getting outwitted by a guy with time on his hands. I think he wins everytime. Their cost to defeat him is astromnomical compared to his cost to defeat them.
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
One way around this problem would be to store the music in an encoded format and have itunes decode the music and wrap in DRM.
Unfortunately, that can be bypassed too. A competent enough person (example DVD jon) could intercept the process between decode and before DRM wrapping and deliver the music. Another way would be for itunes server to request itunes to send a key and then use that key to add DRM to the music on server before delivering to user, although then you could build a player that intercepted the key and uses it to remove the DRM.
I'm sure for every solution apple can think of, DVD jon can think of a way to defeat it. There might be no technical solution to the problem at all.
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
mac rules, pc sucks, how hard is this? if you dont' agree, why are you on a site devoted to macs? leave now!!!!!!! (not u alex... lol)
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
mac rules, pc sucks, how hard is this? if you dont' agree, why are you on a site devoted to macs? leave now!!!!!!! (not u alex... lol)
topicolo
Jul 11, 10:27 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
Interesting...
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
miles01110
Apr 28, 07:22 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Macnoviz
Sep 26, 05:08 AM
So, first it was the number of transistors per processor, then they coupled that with higher clock speeds (MHz) and now with multi-cores inside multi-processors.
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
How about Quantum computers?
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
How about Quantum computers?
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
For those saying this is an anti-bullying video, I think you're kind of missing the point. No one believes bullying is magically going to go away. This video was more focused on reaching out to the victims of bullying and encouraging them to access social networks that can help them cope and it attempted to put this time in a young person's life in perspective. It encouraged them to continue on and realise things 'get better'. No one is trying to end bullying, however nice that would be.
Queso
Oct 26, 09:56 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
McKellar
Oct 6, 12:44 AM
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 01:44 PM
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
rasmasyean
Mar 12, 03:34 AM
What the hell? Why doesn't the wind blow it into China instead??? :D
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 10:27 PM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
UberMac
Sep 12, 04:02 PM
Anybody else a little suspicious of just "802.11"...I'm thinking it's got to be 802.11n otherwise they would specify extreme. (Which means new adapters for computers on existing technology)
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 10:53 PM
It was not a Latin sentence, so it was certainly meaningless in Latin. If you look up "sign", as a noun meaning signification, and instead choose the first person singular of the Latin verb meaning "sign a letter", you are not off to a very promising start. Cicero would be rolling in his grave.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:34 PM
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
rhuber
Apr 20, 09:30 PM
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
paulvee
Oct 30, 09:32 PM
I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?
I have not. Been too busy living in FCP all day and night and trying to get Sonnet or Promax to get a working driver for the E4P card that's supposed to power the unit I got from Promax. It's on my list, but feel free to call them if you have time. There is power in numbers. If you call, post here and I'll call that day and maybe we can jar something in their R&D depts. :)
I have not. Been too busy living in FCP all day and night and trying to get Sonnet or Promax to get a working driver for the E4P card that's supposed to power the unit I got from Promax. It's on my list, but feel free to call them if you have time. There is power in numbers. If you call, post here and I'll call that day and maybe we can jar something in their R&D depts. :)
miles01110
May 2, 10:08 AM
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:40 PM
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
SRSound
Oct 31, 12:46 PM
Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.