rasmasyean
Mar 12, 03:34 AM
What the hell? Why doesn't the wind blow it into China instead??? :D
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 08:32 PM
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Ugg
Mar 14, 12:18 AM
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
California is making great strides in this area. Through creative financing, tax breaks, and fairly high electric rates, quite a few people have solar. It's especially important here in the summer when electricity use is at its greatest.
However, the one thing that nobody has brought up is that evil word..... CONSERVATION
Not using electricity is a lot cheaper all around than building a new power plant, no matter the fuel source.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
California is making great strides in this area. Through creative financing, tax breaks, and fairly high electric rates, quite a few people have solar. It's especially important here in the summer when electricity use is at its greatest.
However, the one thing that nobody has brought up is that evil word..... CONSERVATION
Not using electricity is a lot cheaper all around than building a new power plant, no matter the fuel source.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 01:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Jennette McCurdy and Nathan
Sabenth
Sep 20, 08:35 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
nathan kress 2011. nathan
Nathan Kress Talks #39
nathan kress 2011. on Imagenes
Nathan Kress asks Emma Roberts
nathan kress 2011 icarly.
Nathan Kress lt;3
Nathan Kress Actor Nathan
Nathan Kress Picture in
how old is nathan kress 2011.
nathan kress and jennette
nathan kress 2011. nathan
will join Nathan Kress and
how old is nathan kress 2011.
KCA 2009: Nathan Kress
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
puma1552
Mar 15, 04:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 10:55 AM
Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance?
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
M-5
Apr 15, 12:31 PM
I think one thing that would help the Gay community would be instead of focusing on how different they are focus on how much like everyone else they are. I live in one of the largest gay communities outside of San Fransisco, and as a straight male have nothing but the utmost respect and love for the Gay community. Its time though that they stepped up and said hey We are just like all of you!
No, I don't agree with this. The GLBT shouldn't have to try to live up to the heterosexual norms of society in order to be accepted. This is really similar to when heterosexuals say "I'm alright with gay people as long as I don't see them doing gay things." Its like saying that being gay is okay as long as a person's identity is hidden from the rest of society. No, it should be accepted, and the GLBT shouldn't have to live out the heteronormative image to be treated with the resepect and dignity that human beings deserve.
I love the message that it's alright to be who you are, and that you don't have to pretend you're straight to get some damn respect. I mean, I'm taking a university course focusing on Discriminaton in the Marketplace, and we've discussed many issues such as systemic racism primarily focusing on African Americans, or weight and ethnic discrimination. But this past week we were discussing how prevalent discrimination is against the GLBT, and there were some advertisements shown such as the Snickers Superbowl where two men eat the same snickers bar and end up having their lips meet in the middle. The ad ends with the men feeling disgusted and having to express their masculinity by ripping off their chest hair. I have several issues with this ad, such as the fact that homosexuality is still being displayed as something disgraceful and shameful that someone can't be associated with. Another is that the message is relayed that Gay men can't be masculine.
The second ad we saw was a McDonalds commercial where a boy is conversing on the phone with his boyfriend while looking at a class photo of both of them. When the boys father comes back with his McDonalds meals, the boy has to end up call and hear his dad ask him about "the ladies." The ad ends with some message such as "Come as you are." After the ad there were a bunch of giggles coming from guys laughing at the gay nature of the ad. It sickened me because of the fact that it was a class focusing on discrimination and the apparent homophobia was so prevalent amongst my peers. I also had issues with the ad, which actually left me feeling worse about myself at the end of it. First of all, the boy had to secretly speak to his partner and hang up the call before his father returned. Then he had to listen to his father ask him about his relationship with women while the boy has to dismiss his real identity from his father.
Ugh, and I also hate when people say "Why does the GLBT always say that we should be accepting towards them and their beliefs when on the other hand they're against people and religions who are against them; thats so hypocritical." I hate this statement because what the GLBT ask for and believe in is equality and acceptance and don't infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. While the belief that certain heterosexuals take on infringes on the rights of homosexuals and want unacceptance.
And being gay isn't some stupid hipster fad that some of you refer to it as.
No, I don't agree with this. The GLBT shouldn't have to try to live up to the heterosexual norms of society in order to be accepted. This is really similar to when heterosexuals say "I'm alright with gay people as long as I don't see them doing gay things." Its like saying that being gay is okay as long as a person's identity is hidden from the rest of society. No, it should be accepted, and the GLBT shouldn't have to live out the heteronormative image to be treated with the resepect and dignity that human beings deserve.
I love the message that it's alright to be who you are, and that you don't have to pretend you're straight to get some damn respect. I mean, I'm taking a university course focusing on Discriminaton in the Marketplace, and we've discussed many issues such as systemic racism primarily focusing on African Americans, or weight and ethnic discrimination. But this past week we were discussing how prevalent discrimination is against the GLBT, and there were some advertisements shown such as the Snickers Superbowl where two men eat the same snickers bar and end up having their lips meet in the middle. The ad ends with the men feeling disgusted and having to express their masculinity by ripping off their chest hair. I have several issues with this ad, such as the fact that homosexuality is still being displayed as something disgraceful and shameful that someone can't be associated with. Another is that the message is relayed that Gay men can't be masculine.
The second ad we saw was a McDonalds commercial where a boy is conversing on the phone with his boyfriend while looking at a class photo of both of them. When the boys father comes back with his McDonalds meals, the boy has to end up call and hear his dad ask him about "the ladies." The ad ends with some message such as "Come as you are." After the ad there were a bunch of giggles coming from guys laughing at the gay nature of the ad. It sickened me because of the fact that it was a class focusing on discrimination and the apparent homophobia was so prevalent amongst my peers. I also had issues with the ad, which actually left me feeling worse about myself at the end of it. First of all, the boy had to secretly speak to his partner and hang up the call before his father returned. Then he had to listen to his father ask him about his relationship with women while the boy has to dismiss his real identity from his father.
Ugh, and I also hate when people say "Why does the GLBT always say that we should be accepting towards them and their beliefs when on the other hand they're against people and religions who are against them; thats so hypocritical." I hate this statement because what the GLBT ask for and believe in is equality and acceptance and don't infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. While the belief that certain heterosexuals take on infringes on the rights of homosexuals and want unacceptance.
And being gay isn't some stupid hipster fad that some of you refer to it as.
63dot
Mar 15, 07:33 AM
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
While I am not 100% percent against nuclear and see the pluses with the minuses, and I realize how much blood has been shed over oil, so I hope this article has some truth to it.
If solar takes off with these types of salt plants, then we can rely less on nuclear and oil. I am all for solar.
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
While I am not 100% percent against nuclear and see the pluses with the minuses, and I realize how much blood has been shed over oil, so I hope this article has some truth to it.
If solar takes off with these types of salt plants, then we can rely less on nuclear and oil. I am all for solar.
gnasher729
Oct 30, 01:44 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to wait for someone else or me at a store to make sure Toast and Handbrake don't have those bugs. :eek:
That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.
That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.
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:
soLoredd
Mar 18, 06:07 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
Piggie
Apr 9, 10:49 AM
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
Oh yes, believe me, I agree fully with what you say, SOME games are superb with on screen touch controls. Some games are only really practical with on screen touch controls.
Without any question, there is a large area of entertainment software and simple utilities that work excellently be being able to press a button, pull something on screen, push and twist things on screen.
Indeed, this method of control works superb for certain styles of software.
However, there are also a whole range of applications and games that are just not realistically possible with touch screen commands.
Naturally any applications that are very complex and require many many layers of multiple menu's and commands to do what they do. Some role playing games which have many key commands you need to access fast to call upon certain actions/commands (some of these are not even really possible on a console controller and need a keyboard)
Plus I suppose most obviously First Person Perspective games, when you need to move in all 3 dimensions, jumping, shooting, spinning rout with split second timing and precision.
Unless you wish to dumb down games (which I don't think many really want) there needs to be some option.
For small devices, Touch, Phone, I don't see Apple doing much as there are naturally for simple/quick games on the move. You are not really going to settle down for a few hour gaming session on your phone much of the time.
Slide out keyboard I can't see happen.
To be honest, the most workable idea would be an Optional official bluetooth Apple games controller, Like a PS3, or 360 controller, with all the normal buttons and joysticks that a dev can choose to support if they want.
Then as a user, you can select between on-screen controls or the optional controller if you have one.
That's the easiest and most practical answer, and would hurt no-one and could only be a positive.
Unfortunately, we have a problem. Steve Jobs, who appears to have personal mental issues, and only wishes to pursue one path and feels offering things like such a device/option would not be a POSITIVE thing for customers, but he appears to view things like that as a NEGATIVE thing, feeling that it's admitting failure of a touch screen to be the answer to everything.
It's like a stylus. For some tasks a fine tipped stylus (like a fine tipped brush when painting) is better than a thick brush (a finger) and yet he comes out with silly childish comments like "Stylus = Fail" rather than speaking like an adult and accepting that for some things, such a option would be better.
I guess we will see what happens.
Perhaps there is more possibility in time a Bluetooth joystick controller option will be more lightly on future Android/Honeycomb tablets for gaming.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
Oh yes, believe me, I agree fully with what you say, SOME games are superb with on screen touch controls. Some games are only really practical with on screen touch controls.
Without any question, there is a large area of entertainment software and simple utilities that work excellently be being able to press a button, pull something on screen, push and twist things on screen.
Indeed, this method of control works superb for certain styles of software.
However, there are also a whole range of applications and games that are just not realistically possible with touch screen commands.
Naturally any applications that are very complex and require many many layers of multiple menu's and commands to do what they do. Some role playing games which have many key commands you need to access fast to call upon certain actions/commands (some of these are not even really possible on a console controller and need a keyboard)
Plus I suppose most obviously First Person Perspective games, when you need to move in all 3 dimensions, jumping, shooting, spinning rout with split second timing and precision.
Unless you wish to dumb down games (which I don't think many really want) there needs to be some option.
For small devices, Touch, Phone, I don't see Apple doing much as there are naturally for simple/quick games on the move. You are not really going to settle down for a few hour gaming session on your phone much of the time.
Slide out keyboard I can't see happen.
To be honest, the most workable idea would be an Optional official bluetooth Apple games controller, Like a PS3, or 360 controller, with all the normal buttons and joysticks that a dev can choose to support if they want.
Then as a user, you can select between on-screen controls or the optional controller if you have one.
That's the easiest and most practical answer, and would hurt no-one and could only be a positive.
Unfortunately, we have a problem. Steve Jobs, who appears to have personal mental issues, and only wishes to pursue one path and feels offering things like such a device/option would not be a POSITIVE thing for customers, but he appears to view things like that as a NEGATIVE thing, feeling that it's admitting failure of a touch screen to be the answer to everything.
It's like a stylus. For some tasks a fine tipped stylus (like a fine tipped brush when painting) is better than a thick brush (a finger) and yet he comes out with silly childish comments like "Stylus = Fail" rather than speaking like an adult and accepting that for some things, such a option would be better.
I guess we will see what happens.
Perhaps there is more possibility in time a Bluetooth joystick controller option will be more lightly on future Android/Honeycomb tablets for gaming.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 03:27 AM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
Many of the applications that graphics, audio, and video producers use do take advantage of the extra power. It just happens differently than one might think -- it has via better multitasking. It is up to the user to learn how to use quad and eight core boxes to improve production.
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJO
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
Many of the applications that graphics, audio, and video producers use do take advantage of the extra power. It just happens differently than one might think -- it has via better multitasking. It is up to the user to learn how to use quad and eight core boxes to improve production.
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJO
toddybody
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
These teens are just people who are hurting because of the terrible actions others place on them. That empathy needs to be universal...regardless of your opinion on sexuality.
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 09:22 AM
In case anyone was wondering. ;)
Evangelion
Jul 13, 05:05 AM
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
bigandy
Sep 26, 04:29 AM
this will be fantastic for rendering stuff :D
brianus
Sep 26, 12:47 PM
Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 06:19 AM
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.
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
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.
Option A (Legal Participation): Buy the music and abide by the laws
Option B (Legal Non-Participation): Don't buy the music and not be subject to any laws
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself. Even if I end up the same place as you, the journey I took to get there will make all the difference.
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
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.
Option A (Legal Participation): Buy the music and abide by the laws
Option B (Legal Non-Participation): Don't buy the music and not be subject to any laws
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself. Even if I end up the same place as you, the journey I took to get there will make all the difference.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:05 AM
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 03:03 PM
I haven't yet heard a good argument from a theist that used the principles of entropy or thermodynamics.
Could you put forth one of those points?
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Could you put forth one of those points?
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:45 PM
^^ It's hard not to veer from apocalypse to there's no problem,but I think a pragmatic view would be that there are serious problems (injecting seawater is a novel and DIY approach) but a meltdown is probably not on the cards,nevertheless they've got major problems,at least some core damage has happened but the reactors are shut down they've just got to get rid of the heat,so far so good.
New TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031304-e.html
* High Pressure Coolant Injection System of Unit 3 automatically stopped.
Reacent Post
New TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031304-e.html
* High Pressure Coolant Injection System of Unit 3 automatically stopped.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment