aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:37 AM
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt.
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
phalseHUD
Apr 21, 04:38 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
I've browsed these forums for a while and used to post under a different name until I started work for a certain company which shall remain nameless! But this has to be one of the most pathetic comments I've ever read on here.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
I've browsed these forums for a while and used to post under a different name until I started work for a certain company which shall remain nameless! But this has to be one of the most pathetic comments I've ever read on here.
matticus008
Mar 19, 06:00 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
Lennholm
May 2, 04:08 PM
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
macidiot
Jul 12, 05:24 PM
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
flopticalcube
Apr 23, 10:46 AM
This is just a form of soldier conditioning. Don't fool yourself into thinking we don't do this to our own soldiers. That's why we get them when they are young 18 year olds who are impressionable and tell them they are doing this for "god and country". The good wolves will "go to heaven" protecting the sheep. "God Speed" in their mission. Being sent out to get blown up by an IED is as cannon fodderish as strapping one to your chest. The only difference is that the latter tactic is used in times of despiration against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. Just like Kamakazis, Viet Cong, etc. And now these ppl make our TV's and clothing. ;)
And that's why its so hard for "Atheists" to "come out" in the military, eh? Look past the surface and the exact words (heaven, prayers, freedom, hero...use whatever words you want) and the concept is still the same. Even the CIA told the Afghans during the cold war that they will "go to god" if they die fighting the Russians. It's funny when you see some white dude surrounded by turbaned ppl saying this in those old videos. Believe what you want but in a sense, we do "brainwash" our troops. And to good effect, because it makes them do their job willingly and better. And it gives them comfort when they know they will die taking a bullet for oil.
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
And that's why its so hard for "Atheists" to "come out" in the military, eh? Look past the surface and the exact words (heaven, prayers, freedom, hero...use whatever words you want) and the concept is still the same. Even the CIA told the Afghans during the cold war that they will "go to god" if they die fighting the Russians. It's funny when you see some white dude surrounded by turbaned ppl saying this in those old videos. Believe what you want but in a sense, we do "brainwash" our troops. And to good effect, because it makes them do their job willingly and better. And it gives them comfort when they know they will die taking a bullet for oil.
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 06:24 PM
I didn't know before that "DVD Jon" is a movie star as well. He plays himself in the documentary Info Wars (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0415067/).
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
munkery
May 3, 12:15 AM
Yes, and that prevents AntiVirus 2010 from successfully collecting credit card info too.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 06:21 PM
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
R.Perez
Mar 11, 06:06 AM
8ft wave passed Midway Island, 6ft wave expected for Oahu. I live plenty high above sea level, and bought groceries so I am ALL GOOD.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 12:53 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Pony. You forgot the pony.
I would say that the CPU would be 2.33GHz to 2.66Ghz Conroe an prices would start at $1499.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Pony. You forgot the pony.
I would say that the CPU would be 2.33GHz to 2.66Ghz Conroe an prices would start at $1499.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Please elaborate LTD.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
gwfattwkr
Jun 7, 03:44 PM
How is it possible that AT&T still can't get this stuff together. It's ridiculous. I'm surprised Apple hasn't stepped in the fix this stuff. It's giving the iPhone a bad name.
any carrier that had the iphone on their network would have the same problem. Iphone is has the highest bandwidth consumption of any phone ever.
could ATT do more to upgrade the network, yes but it takes time.
any carrier that had the iphone on their network would have the same problem. Iphone is has the highest bandwidth consumption of any phone ever.
could ATT do more to upgrade the network, yes but it takes time.
The DRis
Mar 18, 12:15 PM
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
tveric
Mar 18, 05:04 PM
The most important thing to note, however, is if you use PyMusique you may have your account cancelled (and Apple knows who you are and where you "live" based upon your credit card). So, if you really want to take that risk go ahead. And remember, you could also be found guilty of violating the DMCA even if you just try to use this tool. 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. Basically, you're stupid to even try to use PyMusique.
So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?
No one's account is getting cancelled. Apple will quickly negate the effects of this work-around just like they did the other ones. And I find it funny that every time someone finds a hole in the iTMS DRM and thereby forces Apple to make the iTMS more secure, a bunch of gloom-and-doom types weigh in on how bad, bad, bad it is to write/use such exploits. Just read some of the posts in this thread, it's friggin' hilarious.
Everybody relax.
So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?
No one's account is getting cancelled. Apple will quickly negate the effects of this work-around just like they did the other ones. And I find it funny that every time someone finds a hole in the iTMS DRM and thereby forces Apple to make the iTMS more secure, a bunch of gloom-and-doom types weigh in on how bad, bad, bad it is to write/use such exploits. Just read some of the posts in this thread, it's friggin' hilarious.
Everybody relax.
desdomg
Mar 18, 03:30 PM
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. The music industry needs to get used to the idea that you should really only sell a track once to each user, not one track for each device the user wants to play that track on.
Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.
Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
I got far more enjoyment out of Infinity Blade for 6 dollars than I did out of Pilot Wings Resort 3DS for 40 dollars...just sayin.
Lesser Evets
Apr 28, 07:35 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
And growth is bad?
And growth is bad?
OnionMike
Jun 7, 02:42 PM
i have been dropping calls a lot lately for some reason. up until last year i have no drop call but this year i have **** load of drops. COME ON ATT!! :mad:
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:39 PM
Firstly, let me say I'm against DRM if it restricts me using my own music I've paid for, but equally I see why artists don't want me uploading my iTunes Library to Gnutella.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
baryon
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Amazing! I love it. This is what Video Editing was in serious need of.
Post Title → 2011 calendar canada printable
