PracticalMac
Mar 11, 08:56 AM
Dam... I hope that damage isn't that bad, but it being 8.9 I won't hold my breathe.
Its bad, really bad.
Have relatives there, in Tokyo.
Its bad, really bad.
Have relatives there, in Tokyo.
more...
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:25 AM
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 02:04 PM
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.
more...
UnixMac
Oct 12, 05:49 PM
You guys lost me and prolly (I like that, Prolly) about 90% of this forum....
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 02:25 PM
What's an assertation?
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
OllyW
Mar 12, 04:27 AM
Nuclear experts are speculating that the explosion was caused by hydrogen gas released from water that's come into contact with the overheating fuel rods.
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
more...
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
supremedesigner
May 2, 09:18 AM
<snip>
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
louis Fashion
Apr 9, 12:04 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Hey the more games the better. Who knows they might have the next great thing.....
Hey the more games the better. Who knows they might have the next great thing.....
aswitcher
Jul 12, 03:46 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
4 ram slots so I can get 2 gig cheap or 4 gig if I want it.
2 x FW 400s well.
BT/AX standard of course.
Frontrow IR port.
Optical audio in/out.
User replacable Ram, HDD, Graphics card(?).
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
4 ram slots so I can get 2 gig cheap or 4 gig if I want it.
2 x FW 400s well.
BT/AX standard of course.
Frontrow IR port.
Optical audio in/out.
User replacable Ram, HDD, Graphics card(?).
more...
skunk
Apr 24, 06:20 PM
The muslim extremists in my country always get supported by those who call themselves "moderate muslims". Probably because of some "solidarity" (blind obedience) code within the ummah. When they gang up together like that on controversial issues, it's very easy to see them all as extremists. That's how they strive to appear, even when they're not.That's the trouble with the Word of God�: it's just not negotiable. 7th century rules.
Apple OC
Mar 12, 01:42 AM
best of luck with the complications at the nuclear plant ... on top of the best Japanese engineers, I am sure some others from around the world are there to help also.
this will definitely not be like Chernobyl
this will definitely not be like Chernobyl
more...
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:49 PM
Wow. Someone should explain to him all the reasons why that is unconstitutional.
more...
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 04:16 AM
Overclocked my Athlon 1.4GHz Tbird to 1.522GHz, benchmark results (under C#, which was fastest) did an average of 7390 milliseconds (7.39 seconds). w00t!
Gotta love overclocking.
Gotta love overclocking.
leekohler
Mar 25, 02:54 PM
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
more...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:03 AM
The premise of suggesting someone on a check out line play a game on a console is silly. I mentioned the word "future" for a reason, not to supplant but for the anticipation. That obviously escaped you.
I've said elsewhere in this thread, the IOS mind numbing game is just perfect for the above scenario, you know when your waiting behind the lady who waits until everything is rung up before digging in her ginormous purse to dig out her wallet, count her money, and then dig around for loose change. IOS games are good for distraction.
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
The fact that you make a range of posts across a thread is not an excuse to make lazy assertions in one.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this is a scenario perfect for iOS, now try it in a few more. You won't regret it.
I've said elsewhere in this thread, the IOS mind numbing game is just perfect for the above scenario, you know when your waiting behind the lady who waits until everything is rung up before digging in her ginormous purse to dig out her wallet, count her money, and then dig around for loose change. IOS games are good for distraction.
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
The fact that you make a range of posts across a thread is not an excuse to make lazy assertions in one.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this is a scenario perfect for iOS, now try it in a few more. You won't regret it.
ET007
Mar 18, 02:48 PM
Just because a company makes you sign their TOS, it does not make the TOS a Holy Grail law. TOS are only written in the best interest of a company and they are very often faulty.
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
EagerDragon
Jul 12, 12:23 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
Very, remeber that they may also have multiple GPU(s).
:D
Very, remeber that they may also have multiple GPU(s).
:D
more...
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
more...
more...
more...
more...
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:31 PM
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
more...
emotion
Sep 20, 10:52 AM
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
Yeah but a Mini costs �400 (and up to �600 when properly equipped) and this will cost �200 or less.
Yeah but a Mini costs �400 (and up to �600 when properly equipped) and this will cost �200 or less.
Bonte
Sep 22, 07:47 AM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
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...
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento