rovex
Mar 12, 08:20 AM
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Let's put things into perspective...
60% of china's electricity is generated through the burning of coal - a heavy pollutant, which is not a renewable source. Thus not viable.
china has 9 nuclear power plants which account for 2% of chinas energy, whilst France has 59 plants accounting for 80% of the country's energy. And Nuclear power IS a viable form of energy in contrast to coal. And fundamentally better for the environment (although not totally unharmful).
Let's put things into perspective...
60% of china's electricity is generated through the burning of coal - a heavy pollutant, which is not a renewable source. Thus not viable.
china has 9 nuclear power plants which account for 2% of chinas energy, whilst France has 59 plants accounting for 80% of the country's energy. And Nuclear power IS a viable form of energy in contrast to coal. And fundamentally better for the environment (although not totally unharmful).
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
rxse7en
Oct 11, 06:34 AM
If Apple wants to be aggressive, it will happen next month. But if they don't, it could be as late as January. I am sitting on a large pile of cash to buy one the day they are added to the configure page. Love the Dell Screens. They have refurbished 30" models for $1349 now. :eek: :)
I know no one here likes to read my stories of inadequate power, but even with the Quad G5 and that cheap 2GHz Dual Core G5 I picked up at Fry's, I still have to put my Multi-Threaded Workload into a Queue that all runs much slower than it will with 8 cores. I am very excited about the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.
I was one click away from buying a refurb 2.66 Mac Pro last evening and decided to wait until next month to see what Apple brings to the table. I've sold off my Quicksilver, Pismo, G4 AL 'book, and G4 Mini and picked up a MBP and MB now all I need is a new tower and my Intel transition is complete. Aside from the lack of UB CS2 apps it's been a great transition.
Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.
B
I know no one here likes to read my stories of inadequate power, but even with the Quad G5 and that cheap 2GHz Dual Core G5 I picked up at Fry's, I still have to put my Multi-Threaded Workload into a Queue that all runs much slower than it will with 8 cores. I am very excited about the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.
I was one click away from buying a refurb 2.66 Mac Pro last evening and decided to wait until next month to see what Apple brings to the table. I've sold off my Quicksilver, Pismo, G4 AL 'book, and G4 Mini and picked up a MBP and MB now all I need is a new tower and my Intel transition is complete. Aside from the lack of UB CS2 apps it's been a great transition.
Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.
B
jayenh
Feb 24, 08:44 AM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 12:16 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:32 PM
Because it is the third longest example of drift on PRSI (for now) and since appleguy123 started that one, of course he wants it to continue.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
killmoms
Apr 13, 12:55 AM
Not making an individual track for every single track of audio attached to a clip is enough reason for a day one purchase for me. HATED the old-school, Pro Tools-style audio track system in FCP. Made working with anything beyond stereo or mono a bear. I don�t want to HAVE to go into Soundtrack if I don�t want to, dammit!
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:36 PM
All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
rasmasyean
Mar 11, 08:06 AM
I'm in Tokyo. The big shake happened around 3 in the afternoon. I was walking around outside. Returned immediately to my apartment. Lots of broken glass and plates. Books have fallen from the shelf and my office was a mess, but my old mother, dog & cats, and Macs are okay. The aftershocks are continuing.
The damage in Tokyo seems to be fairly light. The situation in Sendai (northern part of Japan) is very serious. It's been hit by tsunami. The TV is showing these helicopter shots of tsunami coming in, and you can actually see cars and buildings and sometimes people being washed away. Can't do anything. I stopped watching TV.
Do they take those "people washed away" videos off Youtube or something right away? All I've seen are the same footages of "stuff" being engulfed by the front. It almost looks as if the entire area has been evacuated prior to this. I tried to find ppl, but I don't see any....unless they like instantly die and sink to the bottom or something or are stuck in the cars.
The damage in Tokyo seems to be fairly light. The situation in Sendai (northern part of Japan) is very serious. It's been hit by tsunami. The TV is showing these helicopter shots of tsunami coming in, and you can actually see cars and buildings and sometimes people being washed away. Can't do anything. I stopped watching TV.
Do they take those "people washed away" videos off Youtube or something right away? All I've seen are the same footages of "stuff" being engulfed by the front. It almost looks as if the entire area has been evacuated prior to this. I tried to find ppl, but I don't see any....unless they like instantly die and sink to the bottom or something or are stuck in the cars.
Phil A.
Aug 29, 04:00 PM
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
iCole
Apr 6, 12:54 PM
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Roy
Oct 6, 07:16 PM
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?:)
And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?:)
SandboxGeneral
Mar 14, 06:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was watching ABC World News with Diane Sawyer this evening and she said there have been no reports of looting since the earthquake. She went on to say that the total population is about half that of the US, squeezed into an area the size of Montana.
If it's true that there has been no looting, I think that says a lot for the Japanese people. That's a sign of a very respectable and community oriented civilization.
I lived in Japan for one year while serving in the US Marines, and I enjoyed every minute of my stay there. I do hope that someday I can make a return visit.
Back to the bit about looting, I feel ashamed and embarrassed of my own countrymen in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina when we all saw people, including police officers, looting Walmart and many other businesses. To me it's unacceptable for Americans to be doing that sort of thing as the "leaders of the free world." Thats one area where the Japanese have the high ground over Americans; sense of community through disaster.
Let me qualify my remarks by saying I realize that the percentage of Americans who were looting after Katrina, is small, but when it's broadcast over international TV, it reflects on the whole country.
I was watching ABC World News with Diane Sawyer this evening and she said there have been no reports of looting since the earthquake. She went on to say that the total population is about half that of the US, squeezed into an area the size of Montana.
If it's true that there has been no looting, I think that says a lot for the Japanese people. That's a sign of a very respectable and community oriented civilization.
I lived in Japan for one year while serving in the US Marines, and I enjoyed every minute of my stay there. I do hope that someday I can make a return visit.
Back to the bit about looting, I feel ashamed and embarrassed of my own countrymen in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina when we all saw people, including police officers, looting Walmart and many other businesses. To me it's unacceptable for Americans to be doing that sort of thing as the "leaders of the free world." Thats one area where the Japanese have the high ground over Americans; sense of community through disaster.
Let me qualify my remarks by saying I realize that the percentage of Americans who were looting after Katrina, is small, but when it's broadcast over international TV, it reflects on the whole country.
Lesser Evets
Apr 13, 05:49 AM
$299 is impressive.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 03:35 AM
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
marksman
Mar 18, 02:57 AM
Big Thumbs up AT&T. I am glad they are just taking it to enroll people into the 2gig plan and add tethering, saves people the trouble of having to do it themselves!
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
awmazz
Mar 15, 12:22 AM
Another helpful article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42075628) (MSNBC):
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:22 PM
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
d-fi
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
I think a lot of people are overlooking what "iTV" does.
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
EricNau
Mar 15, 12:54 AM
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
Here is the article to which you referred. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12740843
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
Someone has a Geiger Counter reading set up in Tokyo (I assume that is the location). If someone can explain this that would be wonderful.
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
[/URL]
Based on every online source I could obtain, readings of <100 CPM are significantly LOWER than readings you'd get if you took a geiger counter on an airplane. [URL="http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/geiger_counter.html"]Link (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
...And given the highly unknown nature of that graph (how sensitive/reliable the equipment is, who operates it, where it is, who compiled the information, etc.) it's a dubious source at best. Though there isn't anything suspicious about the data, I might add.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
Here is the article to which you referred. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12740843
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
Someone has a Geiger Counter reading set up in Tokyo (I assume that is the location). If someone can explain this that would be wonderful.
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
[/URL]
Based on every online source I could obtain, readings of <100 CPM are significantly LOWER than readings you'd get if you took a geiger counter on an airplane. [URL="http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/geiger_counter.html"]Link (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
...And given the highly unknown nature of that graph (how sensitive/reliable the equipment is, who operates it, where it is, who compiled the information, etc.) it's a dubious source at best. Though there isn't anything suspicious about the data, I might add.
mrsir2009
Apr 9, 03:03 AM
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
Pokemon belongs on GameBoys, Gameboy colours and Gameboy advanceds.
Pokemon belongs on GameBoys, Gameboy colours and Gameboy advanceds.