NT1440
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
more...
chabig
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit.They could, but it would cost a lot 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...
matticus008
Mar 20, 04:59 AM
It is nice that some folks here feel they know the "law". Look at the world your "law" has created. Look back in history and review what "law" has allowed humans to do to other humans and our planet.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
[...]
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance.
It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
[...]
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance.
It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
more...
leekohler
Mar 25, 03:39 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
more...
Popeye206
Apr 9, 08:45 AM
And the Eco system grows. I love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:59 PM
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
skunk
Apr 27, 02:51 PM
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...I'm afraid you are.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
matticus008
Mar 20, 05:22 AM
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
more...
Apple OC
Apr 26, 10:16 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 02:47 PM
Are you drunk?
I thought he was suffering from extreme youth.
I thought he was suffering from extreme youth.
more...
devman
Sep 21, 09:25 AM
Actually, Steve noted that the iTV WILL do HD. It does have an HDMI port out, doesn't it? The issue now is that the ITS doesn't have that content yet. But if YOU have something you've managed to record on your Mac or PC that IS HD, then, by all means, buy the iTV (or whatever they'll call it) and watch your stuff...
Excellent. Thanks for clarifying. I misinterpreted Iger's comments.
Excellent. Thanks for clarifying. I misinterpreted Iger's comments.
SiliconAddict
Sep 21, 08:48 AM
The more I hear about iTV the lest interested I am in it. I don't need something that integ. with my desktop computer and clogs up my home network. I want a stand alone solution. So it looks like I'm back to building a HTPC sometime next spring. Pitty too. It looks like a slick device. Just not what I'm looking to put under my TV. :(
NT1440
Apr 24, 06:50 PM
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
@ the underlined: It's almost like I couldn't even see you move the goalposts :rolleyes:
As for your rant at the end, you've completely missed my point, then used your very own to rant against with your twisted logic. In fact, it was the same exact tactic I was laughing hysterically (in a morbid way) about listening to Hannity in the car last night.
Have fun with your misunderstandings.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
@ the underlined: It's almost like I couldn't even see you move the goalposts :rolleyes:
As for your rant at the end, you've completely missed my point, then used your very own to rant against with your twisted logic. In fact, it was the same exact tactic I was laughing hysterically (in a morbid way) about listening to Hannity in the car last night.
Have fun with your misunderstandings.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 12:12 AM
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
more...
vincenz
Mar 13, 12:35 PM
Best wishes to the Japanese people. Hope they can get over this tragedy soon.
more...
firestarter
Mar 13, 01:21 PM
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
more...
rdowns
Mar 25, 10:13 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
more...
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:47 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
more...
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:34 AM
I'm happy AT&T did this because i'm a firm believer that you should pay for what you consume. I know people may disagree but don't complain to me just deal with AT&T.
Happy Tethering :p
Happy Tethering :p
more...
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:14 PM
Thread topic reminds me of:
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
Chappers
Mar 13, 12:13 PM
When pumps failed to pump in water and the back up diesel powered generators failed they ran into problems.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
more...
Cheerwino
Apr 9, 08:47 PM
Guys, they hired PR people. I'm a PR person. We promote things that other people create. They are not developers, programmers, designers or even marketers -- they are press and industry promoters. You want folks with contacts in an industry, good at getting press and related placements, who are also good at running a PR department. It's important and useful for companies, part of the marketing mix but not the whole show.
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
jlasoon
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
No comments:
Post a Comment