snoopy
Oct 11, 12:01 PM
Hate to drop in late like this, but the G3 had the same FPU as the 603, not the better one in the 604. When Motorola built the G4, they did not upgrade the FPU, but added AltiVec. This is what I understand. So, yes, double precision floating point does run poorly, with that old 603 FPU.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 12:44 PM
Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
more...
SPUY767
Mar 19, 08:31 PM
You are one of the few moral and sane individuals who I see on this server. People who see beyond this robin hood mentality that permeates the computer world like a plague. People don't seem to feel as though they have done anything wrong when they have stolen something that is not physical.
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
more...
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:56 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
more...
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
MrCrowbar
Jul 12, 08:11 AM
I wish I could say "I'm getting a woodie", but I can't right now... There are people watching :p
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
more...
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
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.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
more...
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
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.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
more...
SuperCachetes
Mar 13, 11:36 AM
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented.
Good post.
To be fair, though, sometimes Americans give themselves a good shat as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
Good post.
To be fair, though, sometimes Americans give themselves a good shat as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
more...
aristobrat
Mar 18, 12:37 PM
Its funny that in your guys minds that its better for someone to use 15GB a month watching netflix/streaming pandora etc. than it is for me to use 2GB tethering.
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
more...
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:02 PM
MacCoaster:
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
Deep space probes beyond
more...
Space Stations
more...
known as Space Probes.
more...
In Space Probe Photography,
Picture+of+space+probe
more...
The US space probe Pioneer 10,
space probes gifts, space probes gift, space probes merchandise, gifts for space probes
more...
Space probes in search of life
more...
more...
more...
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:27 PM
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
more...
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 10:48 AM
It's astonishing that people still listen and follow a bunch of kid ****ers.
Yeah, its ridiculous. In my eyes the catholic church and the church of scientology are on the same level. Both are great businesses and make a lot of money, which would be ok if they were actually taxed. And they say jews are good businessmen...
Yeah, its ridiculous. In my eyes the catholic church and the church of scientology are on the same level. Both are great businesses and make a lot of money, which would be ok if they were actually taxed. And they say jews are good businessmen...
more...
Dippo
Mar 18, 07:44 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".
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
more...
aaronsullivan
Sep 20, 09:15 AM
No tv inputs on the iTV. No DVR capability. Please stop "wishing", "hoping", "suggesting."
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:36 AM
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 06:22 PM
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
more...
Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 18, 06:04 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works), that's right...
more...
yg17
Mar 11, 08:53 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
more...
r.j.s
May 2, 09:20 AM
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
So very true, zip files have been carriers for malware and viruses for years.
That guy needs his head examined.
So very true, zip files have been carriers for malware and viruses for years.
Stridder44
Sep 20, 03:33 AM
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
Iscariot
Mar 27, 12:16 AM
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
Compared to the alternative, it certainly seems to be.
[source: human history]
Compared to the alternative, it certainly seems to be.
[source: human history]
more...
gauriemma
Sep 20, 01:48 PM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento