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
munkery
May 2, 01:38 PM
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
![six flags magic mountain park map 2009. Where: 1 Six Flags Blvd [map],](http://www.jaunted.com/files/14943/frightfest20092.jpg "Where: 1 Six Flags Blvd [map],")
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:58 PM
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 03:43 PM
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
Probably, but it's speculation.
Probably, but it's speculation.
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.
rhuber
Apr 20, 09:30 PM
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
camomac
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
ahhh, why didn't they have dual optical slots in the current G5's..
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
chrono1081
May 2, 08:52 PM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:14 PM
Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?
macfan881
Feb 25, 05:16 PM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:20 AM
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
FAIL
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
FAIL
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 02:00 PM
Thankyou Jerry!
PghLondon
Apr 28, 01:40 PM
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
balamw
Apr 11, 11:05 AM
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
rxse7en
Oct 12, 07:12 AM
Thanks for the update. Still as cheap as the refurbs. I think that's cheap enough for me.
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
You're welcome.
You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.
B
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
You're welcome.
You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.
B
slinger1968
Nov 2, 08:24 PM
Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.
skunk
Apr 24, 05:36 AM
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :) I know, you wouldn't have got so far if you weren't serious.
Warbrain
Oct 8, 10:13 AM
Flash is what will bring the iPhone down.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
Funkymonk
Apr 20, 11:47 PM
Ask yourself what you do with your phone.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
So an Apple monopoly would be good?
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
So an Apple monopoly would be good?
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:17 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:18 PM
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:27 PM
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.
You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.
Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.
You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.
Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 10:58 PM
On other forums, people complain about the word agnostic.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
No comments:
Post a Comment