Denarius
Mar 15, 09:14 PM
Do you write brochures for a living?
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
brepublican
Sep 12, 04:06 PM
I think this is a great product from Apple and shows great foresight. SJ and Apple recognise that they can't surplant the TV from the living room.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
~Shard~
Oct 28, 10:32 AM
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.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. :cool:
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. :cool:
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:40 PM
We also dont need to buy an escalade that gets about 10 miles to the gallon and then drive it EVERYWHERE. take a walk, ride your bike. every little bit helps
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
latergator116
Mar 19, 08:51 AM
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
myemailisjustin
Mar 18, 10:24 AM
I've never once tethered or hotspotted yet my usage for last month was over 9GB....this is just normal iPhone usage for me, they better not automatically change me to the tiered plan. :mad:
Evangelion
Mar 20, 09:44 AM
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
paeza
Oct 26, 01:33 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess
dejo
May 2, 04:13 PM
by default and design, Windows has been more secure than OSX for years now...Google it...!
Well, we have indisputable proof now! :rolleyes:
Well, we have indisputable proof now! :rolleyes:
unlinked
Apr 9, 03:58 PM
Why would I do that?
People who have issues with uncontracted negative questions have been known to display a wide range of linguistic disorders.
People who have issues with uncontracted negative questions have been known to display a wide range of linguistic disorders.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
I'm afraid you are.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
iphonetester
Oct 7, 04:24 PM
I will not be surprised. This is similar to what happened to Apple and PC makers back in the days. Just the sheer volume of PC producers finally lifted Windows above OS X. I believe similar trend will follow on for mobile market. More and more phone makers will adopt Android or Windows Mobile and overtake Iphone OS.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:07 AM
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.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 01:13 PM
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
*LTD*
Apr 24, 04:59 PM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Except that you can't paint Buddhists or Taoists with this sort of brush. Yet they are "religions" too.
Except that you can't paint Buddhists or Taoists with this sort of brush. Yet they are "religions" too.
tteerts
Sep 29, 09:28 AM
Thanks for the info folks. I would definitely not have picked up on that subtelty otherwise.
Surely
Apr 15, 09:08 AM
Nice to see a little corporate social responsibility coming from all of those companies.
:)
:)
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 01:14 PM
...isn't true.
Matthew 5:18-19
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
Matthew 5:18-19
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
uefigs139
Sep 12, 05:00 PM
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
Sydde
Apr 26, 11:53 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical. But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:08 PM
The perfect solution would be for apple to give all US carriers the Iphone. Then we can go and pick the network that works best. People that like At&t stay with At&t, if you want Verizon or t-mobile then go, that way we all live happy. It�s your call Apple :apple: we customers deserve to choose our carrier for our iphone.
I agree ;)
I agree ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment