bobsentell
Mar 18, 08:47 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
more...
Iscariot
Mar 25, 10:39 AM
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
more...
Sherman
Oct 13, 01:46 PM
Another rumor I've heard going around is one of Intels Pentium 5.
We all know about the amazing 4.7Ghz P4 but it's actually not that much faster than a 2.5Ghz P4 because they added so many steps to get up to that clock speed.
In the P5 they tried to stop this troubling trend and found out, they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps.
Amusing...
We all know about the amazing 4.7Ghz P4 but it's actually not that much faster than a 2.5Ghz P4 because they added so many steps to get up to that clock speed.
In the P5 they tried to stop this troubling trend and found out, they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps.
Amusing...
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 12:46 AM
Matthew can go F himself.
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
more...
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
more...
fleggy
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
Firstly - I am no lawyer, and will not pretend to be.
Absolutely agree with this (above). AT&T or any other carrier are not required by law to sell you something. "Management reserve the right to sell".
I am also confused by folks stating that "unlimited means unlimited". How are you going to enforce this? By sighting the same contract you think can be ripped up? You can't pick and choose the paragraphs to suit your viewpoint/case.
The outcome will be simple...AT&T will hold their hands up - they got it wrong, and when contracts end, they will refuse to renew them (goodbye GF plans).
Sure - if you manage to win this class action before your contract ends, then you may get a little unlimited tethering for a while, but even if signing today...2 years? No chance. It will take years. Very short sighted, me thinks.
Big win.
Firstly - I am no lawyer, and will not pretend to be.
Absolutely agree with this (above). AT&T or any other carrier are not required by law to sell you something. "Management reserve the right to sell".
I am also confused by folks stating that "unlimited means unlimited". How are you going to enforce this? By sighting the same contract you think can be ripped up? You can't pick and choose the paragraphs to suit your viewpoint/case.
The outcome will be simple...AT&T will hold their hands up - they got it wrong, and when contracts end, they will refuse to renew them (goodbye GF plans).
Sure - if you manage to win this class action before your contract ends, then you may get a little unlimited tethering for a while, but even if signing today...2 years? No chance. It will take years. Very short sighted, me thinks.
more...
Don't panic
Mar 14, 05:10 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
more...
aristobrat
Mar 18, 12:48 PM
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
more...
Bolivar, Colombia
Esp.), Bolivar, Colombia
Route network in colombia,
Esp.), Bolivar, Colombia
Esp.), Bolivar, Colombia
Esp.), Bolivar, Colombia
more...
sena cartagena bolivar
more...
COLOMBIA. Cartagena de Indias.
more...
Cartagena, Colombia-flag
Carmen del Bolivar Travel
more...
Cartagena de Indias - Colombia
more...
more...
more...
more...
more...
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 11:21 AM
That's where things are going.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
There's a fair bit of misconception in the 10 year lifecycle of the PS3 - the PS2 had a ten year lifecycle too, but the PS3 was released well into that 10 years. The 10 year thing is taken out of context. There will most likely be a ps4 in a couple of years (well, if Japan recovers from the current happenings). I think the same thing can apply to the 360 - there's been a lot of talk about some thing similar - I do think that we won't see anything this year due to the runaway success of Kinect. We'll most likely get an announcement next year and a release the year after. I've a feeling that we'll see something different in the way compatibility works as there was talk of forward "compatible games" many have taken their own thoughts on what that has meant though.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
There's a fair bit of misconception in the 10 year lifecycle of the PS3 - the PS2 had a ten year lifecycle too, but the PS3 was released well into that 10 years. The 10 year thing is taken out of context. There will most likely be a ps4 in a couple of years (well, if Japan recovers from the current happenings). I think the same thing can apply to the 360 - there's been a lot of talk about some thing similar - I do think that we won't see anything this year due to the runaway success of Kinect. We'll most likely get an announcement next year and a release the year after. I've a feeling that we'll see something different in the way compatibility works as there was talk of forward "compatible games" many have taken their own thoughts on what that has meant though.
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:47 PM
The people who put the "blood" on Christianity's hands have never used the Bible to justify it. The mujahideen use the Qur'an and hadith to justify their actions.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 09:22 PM
When exactly?
Uh, gee I don't know :confused:
Oh yeah, here it is:
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with All�h, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Z�lim�n (polytheists and wrong*doers).
8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
8:57 So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) All�h brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
59:2 He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
59:13 Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)
Uh, gee I don't know :confused:
Oh yeah, here it is:
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with All�h, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Z�lim�n (polytheists and wrong*doers).
8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
8:57 So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) All�h brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
59:2 He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
59:13 Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
Photics
Apr 9, 10:26 AM
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 05:57 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
more...
mjstew33
Jul 12, 01:23 AM
Or maybe instead of a Mac pro mini, it might be a Mac mini Extreme? :cool:
more...
firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
more...
iMeowbot
Sep 20, 09:05 AM
I'm liking the sound of this disk feature. Perhaps this will be the stationary iPod I was hoping the Hifi would be.
makinao
Mar 11, 02:48 AM
Satoneko and everyone else in Japan: Please take precautions for aftershocks. In my country, the worst earthquake disaster when two separate 7.0 earthquakes hit the same area within minutes of each other, and aftershocks continued for several days. The worst may not be over. We're hoping for everyone's safety.
*Just read another 6.4 quake just happened.
*Just read another 6.4 quake just happened.
more...
darkplanets
Mar 14, 09:19 AM
A voice of reason (read the whole thing):
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
more...
drewyboy
Mar 18, 07:05 PM
Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.
more...
brap
Mar 20, 09:54 PM
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
more...
Santabean2000
May 2, 08:57 AM
Annoyingly this type of thing will become all too common. Damn Apple and their great products, making themselves popular and that.
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
more...
alex_ant
Oct 11, 04:36 PM
Javajedi, what you've done with your benchmarking is very helpful and I believe provides much insight. I too was surprised to see that the PowerPC performed as poorly as it did. Sorry if I missed you addressing this, but did you use GCC 3.x on the PPC?
There are a few conclusions I could draw from this performance data:
1) AltiVec acceleration is crucial to attain performance competitive with x86.
2) In the best case, AltiVec-accelerated code will perform several times faster than optimized x86 code. However, the best case is very rare and limited to specialized tasks like BLAST, RC5, SETI, certain Photoshop filters, and so on.
3) In the worst case, AltiVec-optimized code will perform barely any better or perhaps even worse than non-optimized code.
4) The G4's integer and floating-point units are extremely weak.
4a) Even MHz-for-MHz, they appear to be slower than those of the Pentium 4.
4b) The 750FX's integer unit is stronger than the Pentium 4's clock-for-clock, but considering the Pentium 4 is clocked 4x higher at the moment, it does about 4x better overall.
5) The c't SPEC benchmarks from a while back (the only source of G4 SPEC results I'm aware of) weren't that far off.
I'm disappointed but not surprised to see that gopher has split from the thread. Oh well, I'm sure he'll reappear at a later date oblivious to everything that has just been presented in this thread.
Alex
There are a few conclusions I could draw from this performance data:
1) AltiVec acceleration is crucial to attain performance competitive with x86.
2) In the best case, AltiVec-accelerated code will perform several times faster than optimized x86 code. However, the best case is very rare and limited to specialized tasks like BLAST, RC5, SETI, certain Photoshop filters, and so on.
3) In the worst case, AltiVec-optimized code will perform barely any better or perhaps even worse than non-optimized code.
4) The G4's integer and floating-point units are extremely weak.
4a) Even MHz-for-MHz, they appear to be slower than those of the Pentium 4.
4b) The 750FX's integer unit is stronger than the Pentium 4's clock-for-clock, but considering the Pentium 4 is clocked 4x higher at the moment, it does about 4x better overall.
5) The c't SPEC benchmarks from a while back (the only source of G4 SPEC results I'm aware of) weren't that far off.
I'm disappointed but not surprised to see that gopher has split from the thread. Oh well, I'm sure he'll reappear at a later date oblivious to everything that has just been presented in this thread.
Alex
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento