samcraig
Mar 18, 08:24 AM
If you are currently on an unlimited plan, sorry - you can't complain about this new development. You agreed to TOS which stated clearly what you could and could not do with your data. Unlimited data is for PHONE use - not for other devices you can hook up to. ATT and other carrier's bandwidth isn't meant to support as many devices as you want on your unlimited plan.
Now... that being said...
Those who are on a 2gb, or whatever LIMITED plan - should be able to do whatever you want with your data. You've paid for a set allotment - and whether you use that on your phone or elsewhere doesn't matter.
There's a clear distinction between unlimited and capped in terms of what you are ENTITLED to or not.
Now... that being said...
Those who are on a 2gb, or whatever LIMITED plan - should be able to do whatever you want with your data. You've paid for a set allotment - and whether you use that on your phone or elsewhere doesn't matter.
There's a clear distinction between unlimited and capped in terms of what you are ENTITLED to or not.
more...
Photics
Apr 9, 09:53 PM
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
Benjamins
Apr 9, 01:59 AM
That's fine. As long as Apple does not come in to the gaming market and starts trying to strong arm third party big names all is good.
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
It is really simple big names go to where the money is.
Apple has their rules. If you believe you can't work with them go somewhere else. It's a business, not a country you are born into.
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
It is really simple big names go to where the money is.
Apple has their rules. If you believe you can't work with them go somewhere else. It's a business, not a country you are born into.
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 02:06 PM
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
more...
soLoredd
Mar 18, 06:08 AM
How could you be the real IT guy if you believe that? Never meant an IT guy that had to "tweak" a few things to get a system to work, the best toys do what the manufacturer never intended!
I think it says TV, not IT. ;)
I think it says TV, not IT. ;)
more...
Red-red
Apr 9, 07:57 PM
And it still won't work.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
JackAxe
Apr 8, 10:58 PM
I hope they poach someone that likes BUTTONS.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 09:27 PM
You are confusing yourself in a convoluted mess you've created. In fact, you are twisting everything to suit what you want.
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:15 PM
MrMacman:
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
brianus
Jul 12, 02:09 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
more...
nixd2001
Oct 12, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
there is a lot a compiler could do to this - by us all (well, those who have the interest in the assembler output of a compiler at least) having a look at what the respective compilers have done, we can form more of an informed opinion of what works out to the benefit of the P4 for this case. This might all be a bit geeky, but I am intersted at least.
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
there is a lot a compiler could do to this - by us all (well, those who have the interest in the assembler output of a compiler at least) having a look at what the respective compilers have done, we can form more of an informed opinion of what works out to the benefit of the P4 for this case. This might all be a bit geeky, but I am intersted at least.
macfan1977
Mar 18, 09:05 PM
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
more...
Gelfin
Mar 27, 05:08 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
more...
askthedust
Sep 20, 08:39 AM
...but in order for me to buy this box I want it to work without connecting to a computer. Just an easy (read Front Row interface) that would let me buy and watch or listen to my purchased content. Wireless would be perfect. plug this in hook it up to my tv and stereo and all my movies and music are on it. I can buy content and save it there. The only time I would want to connect to a computer would be to back up files and to make room for new content or find old content to stream into the box. I could then take this box with me to a friend's house to watch my movies there.
jchung
Mar 18, 11:17 AM
I've never once tethered or hotspotted yet my usage for last month was over 9GB....this is just normal iPhone usage for me, they better not automatically change me to the tiered plan. :mad:
Check out this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
Its a long running problem for a lot of people. AT&T's accounting of data usage has been messed up for quite some time. I don't see how AT&T can justify any claim against someone when they can't correctly account for data usage.
Check out this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
Its a long running problem for a lot of people. AT&T's accounting of data usage has been messed up for quite some time. I don't see how AT&T can justify any claim against someone when they can't correctly account for data usage.
more...
dave420
Mar 18, 12:44 PM
To everyone that is running jailbroken and tethering (against your AT&T TOS) via MyWi. Did you purchase the app or are you pirating that as well?
I purchased the app, though I haven't received any warning either. I only using it occasionally to provide connectivity to my iPad, and usually only for small amounts of data.
(I have been known to use large amounts of data (>15 GB) in a month streaming Netflix on my phone though)
I purchased the app, though I haven't received any warning either. I only using it occasionally to provide connectivity to my iPad, and usually only for small amounts of data.
(I have been known to use large amounts of data (>15 GB) in a month streaming Netflix on my phone though)
more...
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.
more...
awmazz
Mar 14, 02:01 PM
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 09:01 PM
As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.
That was a poor example, I admit. The wedding video situation is fairly complicated, depending on whether you're selling the video (which doesn't seem to be the case) and on the manner in which the song is used. If the song is played in the background by a DJ and it winds up in your video, there's not really an issue. Putting it in in the editing process would fall under fair use for private viewing, but because it's something you're sending out, I can't say off the top of my head whether this is also fair use. You are protected under the law for making mix tapes and CDs, even if you give them away in small numbers. If you make a wedding video and send out two or three copies, I believe this is still considered private viewing. If you send out the video to more than a handful of wedding guests, then you are redistributing and have to obtain permission.
That was a poor example, I admit. The wedding video situation is fairly complicated, depending on whether you're selling the video (which doesn't seem to be the case) and on the manner in which the song is used. If the song is played in the background by a DJ and it winds up in your video, there's not really an issue. Putting it in in the editing process would fall under fair use for private viewing, but because it's something you're sending out, I can't say off the top of my head whether this is also fair use. You are protected under the law for making mix tapes and CDs, even if you give them away in small numbers. If you make a wedding video and send out two or three copies, I believe this is still considered private viewing. If you send out the video to more than a handful of wedding guests, then you are redistributing and have to obtain permission.
more...
SAIRUS
Mar 18, 11:15 AM
I'm a little split on this. My usage is under 5 gigs usually 99% of the time with legit Netflix streaming, pandora, and GPS usage.
Have I tethered before? I won't lie and say I haven't. I have a developer account and created an app to try it out.
That said, AT&T should upgrade their networks too. I pay for a service, and I believe they should serve me, not the other way around. If I obey the rules, don't clamp down to avoid upgrades.
Also anyone who says "change providers." I simply say, work doesn't allow me. Let alone, AT&T has the best coverage where I live. Just sucks that while having the fastest 3G is handicapped if you can't use it for a while. I also travel, so GSM is the best option for me.
I wish in America all frequencies between cell phone companies are standardized to the other foreign countries so all cell phone carriers would have to actually compete for your business.
Have I tethered before? I won't lie and say I haven't. I have a developer account and created an app to try it out.
That said, AT&T should upgrade their networks too. I pay for a service, and I believe they should serve me, not the other way around. If I obey the rules, don't clamp down to avoid upgrades.
Also anyone who says "change providers." I simply say, work doesn't allow me. Let alone, AT&T has the best coverage where I live. Just sucks that while having the fastest 3G is handicapped if you can't use it for a while. I also travel, so GSM is the best option for me.
I wish in America all frequencies between cell phone companies are standardized to the other foreign countries so all cell phone carriers would have to actually compete for your business.
more...
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 06:52 PM
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
more...
therevolution
Mar 18, 05:02 PM
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
Um, wrong. Did you read the story?
Currently, when you buy a song from iTunes, it sends the song to you with no DRM. Your copy of iTunes then adds the DRM using your personal key. So, if you make a copy of the song before iTunes adds the DRM, you've got a DRM-free music file. That's it.
I say go DVD Jon. DRM like this is doomed to fail. If you can hear it, you can copy it. Simple as that. Maybe one day the RIAA will figure that out... probably not, though.
Um, wrong. Did you read the story?
Currently, when you buy a song from iTunes, it sends the song to you with no DRM. Your copy of iTunes then adds the DRM using your personal key. So, if you make a copy of the song before iTunes adds the DRM, you've got a DRM-free music file. That's it.
I say go DVD Jon. DRM like this is doomed to fail. If you can hear it, you can copy it. Simple as that. Maybe one day the RIAA will figure that out... probably not, though.
more...
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:24 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
more...
milo
Sep 20, 05:58 PM
In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini!
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.