Digitalclips
May 2, 02:28 PM
About as huge as most windows ones!
Difference being Windows users don't have to accept an invitation then enter an admin user name and password for most stuff they get zonked with.
BTW, Just curious, did the Scottish folks that founded your town not know how to spell or is it a typo in your town name?
Difference being Windows users don't have to accept an invitation then enter an admin user name and password for most stuff they get zonked with.
BTW, Just curious, did the Scottish folks that founded your town not know how to spell or is it a typo in your town name?
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:35 PM
citizenzen, there are strong elements of faith involved...
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
200paul
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subsribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
space2go
Mar 20, 08:25 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
ready2switch
Sep 20, 09:38 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?
Thoughts?
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 07:07 PM
Sorry doublepost but different topic now:
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
None of this stuff is ever "perfect". I'm sure the US has had it's share of "coverups" and "blunders" too even with all the "red tape" this country has. It's just that most people were keeping an eye on the part where they purposely blew them up! :p
No system is completely failproof. There's no such thing. You weigh the risk and then you accept them when it goes south.
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
None of this stuff is ever "perfect". I'm sure the US has had it's share of "coverups" and "blunders" too even with all the "red tape" this country has. It's just that most people were keeping an eye on the part where they purposely blew them up! :p
No system is completely failproof. There's no such thing. You weigh the risk and then you accept them when it goes south.
Sydde
Mar 14, 08:43 PM
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
That might be my point.
That might be my point.
TimUSCA
Sep 20, 02:01 PM
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box.
It used to be $300 for a lifetime subscription on TiVo... they took it away though.
It used to be $300 for a lifetime subscription on TiVo... they took it away though.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 12:23 PM
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that. Most mainstream religions still cling to this notion.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
addicted44
Apr 20, 11:58 PM
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
skunk
Mar 27, 07:10 PM
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyleHomosexuals have a right to live the same lifestyle as anybody else, under the Constitution and under the UN Declaration.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:15 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Careful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Careful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
PeckhamBog
Apr 20, 05:12 PM
It's interesting how Apple seem to put the customer (and the customer's experience) first and profit big time in the process.
Note to self - note the above.
Note to self - note the above.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 01:44 PM
well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
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
leekohler
Mar 27, 11:12 AM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
milo
Apr 13, 11:30 AM
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
People who are expressing "concern" that is completely based on wild assumptions with no basis in fact deserve the criticism.
Really, I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than assuming that every feature that wasn't shown in this (fairly short) demo has been removed from the app.
I haven't seen a single specific on what's a step down from the previous version other than the price tag and the look.
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
Part of it may be that they're switching from a bundle of multiple apps to selling them separately (or not, we don't know yet). Or maybe they just want to sell more copies and get more of the market share.
People who are expressing "concern" that is completely based on wild assumptions with no basis in fact deserve the criticism.
Really, I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than assuming that every feature that wasn't shown in this (fairly short) demo has been removed from the app.
I haven't seen a single specific on what's a step down from the previous version other than the price tag and the look.
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
Part of it may be that they're switching from a bundle of multiple apps to selling them separately (or not, we don't know yet). Or maybe they just want to sell more copies and get more of the market share.
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
Sounds Good
Apr 16, 07:33 AM
I received my refurb iPad 1 yesterday and was very impressed with how Apple packages their refurbs. Nice!
Went into the Apple store last night to buy a case for the iPad and was ONCE AGAIN drawn to the MacBook Air. Beautiful machine.
Ahhhh, maybe someday... maybe someday. :)
Went into the Apple store last night to buy a case for the iPad and was ONCE AGAIN drawn to the MacBook Air. Beautiful machine.
Ahhhh, maybe someday... maybe someday. :)
THX1139
Jul 13, 03:15 AM
We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
Whats the line in the sand? Are Gay men, simply men who find other men attractive? Do they share partial brain chemistry similar to a woman? Are some Gay Men "women trapped in men's bodies"? None of the above? We havent walked in their shoes...so defining what IS and ISNT a disease is pretty ignorant. glad we're all talking about these issues though...stay well friend and keep posting! :)
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:41 PM
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
manman
Mar 18, 11:57 AM
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
I don't think it's really like this in practice, because 99% of the time people are probably using one device or the other, they aren't surfing around and watching videos etc on the iPad and iPhone at the same time for example. They COULD do it, so I guess the analogy works, I just don't think there's a lot to worry about there.
I agree that if this is explicitly laid out in the contract we signed, we can't really get mad. I do think it's retarded though- with normal Internet service, you pay a single fee and connect any device you want... computers, phones, game consoles... buying service from a phone carrier should ve the same. Because in most cases it really DOES amount to paying for the same data twice. You'd have to have multiple people using each device simultaneously to really get your moneys worth : /
I don't think it's really like this in practice, because 99% of the time people are probably using one device or the other, they aren't surfing around and watching videos etc on the iPad and iPhone at the same time for example. They COULD do it, so I guess the analogy works, I just don't think there's a lot to worry about there.
I agree that if this is explicitly laid out in the contract we signed, we can't really get mad. I do think it's retarded though- with normal Internet service, you pay a single fee and connect any device you want... computers, phones, game consoles... buying service from a phone carrier should ve the same. Because in most cases it really DOES amount to paying for the same data twice. You'd have to have multiple people using each device simultaneously to really get your moneys worth : /
FarNorth
Jun 16, 09:26 AM
Bear in mind that Apple/A T & T were VERY liberal letting people upgrade out of 3G phones, allowing folks to preorder with 6-9-12 months left on contract, a reversal of past practice. Also note that Foxconn gave their workers two pay raises in the last few weeks that add up to 122%. That money came for somewhere so clearly Apple as taking no chances on a supply interruption.
They are very agressively keeping old customers while courting new - in 12 months, we are going to say that the iPhone 4 was the single most successful product Apple history.
They are very agressively keeping old customers while courting new - in 12 months, we are going to say that the iPhone 4 was the single most successful product Apple history.
0 comments:
Post a Comment