Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:07 AM
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
more...
pbh444
Apr 10, 09:04 AM
"MCV reports that Apple has poached two major public relations executives from Nintendo (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43885/Rob-Saunders-heading-to-Apple) and Activision (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43894/Now-Activisions-Nick-Grange-joins-Apple), respectively."
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
SPUY767
Mar 19, 08:31 PM
You are one of the few moral and sane individuals who I see on this server. People who see beyond this robin hood mentality that permeates the computer world like a plague. People don't seem to feel as though they have done anything wrong when they have stolen something that is not physical.
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
more...
bigandy
Mar 20, 09:08 AM
anyone got a link to Mac PyMusique downloads or is it Windows only?
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
more...
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
If you don't believe me, there's plenty of history to read. Just go look at the following industries that were disrupted by technology...
Venue: Pfister Hotel Wedding
more...
My Wedding Concierge -- The W
more...
The Astor Hotel Ballroom
more...
Pfister Hotel Milwaukee
more...
Is The Delafield Hotel your
more...
Wedding Chair Rental, Rent
more...
Hotel:
more...
Ballroom: Wedding Table Setting. The Main Ballroom - up to 250 guests Seats up to 250 people for dinner. If you are planning to.
more...
Denver Tech Center Hotel
Dippo
Mar 18, 03:15 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
more...
takao
Mar 14, 06:32 AM
actually the situations has became rather grave now over the night: another hydrogen explosion at the reactor 3 even bigger than the one which destroyed the the building on the block nr1
and now also a cooling failure at the reactor number 2 where after some reports the water levels have dropped so far that the fuel rods aren't covered completly anymore
regarding the US navy driving through a nuclear cloud: just further confirmation that more has leaked than they admit:
just yesterday a nuclear warning was coming from a a third nuclear plant only that they then realized that it was not their own radiation but actually the radition from the fukushima plant from more than 100 miles away
edit: according to some comments of the 5 emergency fire brigade water pumps used for pumping sea water into the reactors 4 aren't in working conditions partially because of the explosion: so now they have 1 pump to cool 3 reactors ? ... not looking good
and now also a cooling failure at the reactor number 2 where after some reports the water levels have dropped so far that the fuel rods aren't covered completly anymore
regarding the US navy driving through a nuclear cloud: just further confirmation that more has leaked than they admit:
just yesterday a nuclear warning was coming from a a third nuclear plant only that they then realized that it was not their own radiation but actually the radition from the fukushima plant from more than 100 miles away
edit: according to some comments of the 5 emergency fire brigade water pumps used for pumping sea water into the reactors 4 aren't in working conditions partially because of the explosion: so now they have 1 pump to cool 3 reactors ? ... not looking good
more...
puma1552
Mar 14, 08:07 AM
I understand your point abut Japan.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
<---Degree in chemical engineering with an emphasis in renewable energy.
If you want to contest efficiency percentages, it won't matter; the point is that even if you drastically increase those percentages, it still isn't/won't be enough for Japan, especially when you look at the areas needed for those power sources, which Japan simply doesn't have.
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
I don't dismiss green energy per se, didn't mean for it to sound that way. However, what I am saying, is that even if they work for the US or Europe, they aren't going to be viable for every country, every landmass, every population because they aren't all the same. Thus, this means more should be invested into sources like nuclear because even if they don't prove to be the way of the future for America, they very well may be elsewhere in the world, perhaps out of necessity if nothing else.
Sorry if I sounded irate in my last post, I just get tired of seeing the fear-mongering about nuclear power when you can count the number of true disasters on one hand in the history of man, especially when you realize it's been in use for decades in places like Japan with no issues at all prior to now. The issue now isn't even about the reactor or nuclear power itself, it was a natural disaster double-whammy, that knocked out the backup power supply. Had there been a dual backup (which you bet there will be, far up the mountain from where a tsunami can reach, and running underground when this is all done), there wouldn't even be an issue here.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
<---Degree in chemical engineering with an emphasis in renewable energy.
If you want to contest efficiency percentages, it won't matter; the point is that even if you drastically increase those percentages, it still isn't/won't be enough for Japan, especially when you look at the areas needed for those power sources, which Japan simply doesn't have.
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
I don't dismiss green energy per se, didn't mean for it to sound that way. However, what I am saying, is that even if they work for the US or Europe, they aren't going to be viable for every country, every landmass, every population because they aren't all the same. Thus, this means more should be invested into sources like nuclear because even if they don't prove to be the way of the future for America, they very well may be elsewhere in the world, perhaps out of necessity if nothing else.
Sorry if I sounded irate in my last post, I just get tired of seeing the fear-mongering about nuclear power when you can count the number of true disasters on one hand in the history of man, especially when you realize it's been in use for decades in places like Japan with no issues at all prior to now. The issue now isn't even about the reactor or nuclear power itself, it was a natural disaster double-whammy, that knocked out the backup power supply. Had there been a dual backup (which you bet there will be, far up the mountain from where a tsunami can reach, and running underground when this is all done), there wouldn't even be an issue here.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
more...
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 02:00 PM
Thankyou Jerry!
more...
boncellis
Jul 12, 06:16 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever. If Apple is up to it, we are set to see the strongest Apple line up ever. And thats saying a bit, since the current lineup is already mighty all by itself
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
more...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 11:25 AM
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
more...
Apple OC
Mar 12, 08:55 AM
Before everyone jumps to conclusions and spreads fear mongering ... as I said this will not be like Chernobyl.
While we are all on the same page and wish for the best news possible for the region ... we need to look at this with proper perspective.
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and happened in a country known at the time to reject outside help.
What is unfolding in Japan will be dealt with by the very best experts the World has to offer.
I have complete confidence no matter how this turns ... The Japanese Government will do what is right for the people who live there.
IMO ... this will be under control quite soon. Watching it on the news and the Internet is almost pathetic ... the Media seems to want this to get bigger.
We all wish the best for everyone affected by this tragedy.
While we are all on the same page and wish for the best news possible for the region ... we need to look at this with proper perspective.
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and happened in a country known at the time to reject outside help.
What is unfolding in Japan will be dealt with by the very best experts the World has to offer.
I have complete confidence no matter how this turns ... The Japanese Government will do what is right for the people who live there.
IMO ... this will be under control quite soon. Watching it on the news and the Internet is almost pathetic ... the Media seems to want this to get bigger.
We all wish the best for everyone affected by this tragedy.
more...
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:24 AM
I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.
Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.
Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)?
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.
Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)?
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
more...
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Just to keep the numbers rolling:
little town of delafield,
more...
Wedding Reception
more...
Flickr: The Delafield Hotel#39;s Photostream
more...
Flickr: The Delafield Hotel#39;s Photostream
more...
Flickr: The Delafield Hotel#39;s Photostream
more...
more...
more...
more...
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:20 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
more...
rhett7660
Mar 27, 11:44 AM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 09:17 PM
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation. He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it. In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex. You may already have read my post about Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. Again, that organization doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation.
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation. He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it. In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex. You may already have read my post about Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. Again, that organization doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation.
more...
jsw
Mar 18, 03:01 PM
It's actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
It's a lot easier to use the buyer's CPU to add DRM than to task the iTunes servers with doing it - so making the servers do it will cause Apple to either add more horsepower there or slow down iTunes' response times under load.
It's a lot easier to use the buyer's CPU to add DRM than to task the iTunes servers with doing it - so making the servers do it will cause Apple to either add more horsepower there or slow down iTunes' response times under load.
more...
javajedi
Oct 9, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by TheFink
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Very ture. For better or wose, that is what happens when you get locked into a single vendor that sells proprietary hardware *or* software.... just look at Sun :)
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Very ture. For better or wose, that is what happens when you get locked into a single vendor that sells proprietary hardware *or* software.... just look at Sun :)
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
too many of those programs are only on pcs
one research scientist my wife works with started coding in dos on the mac compiler and if he succeeded in getting into the server, which would not happen anyway, he would have caused major damage
this phd had no idea that the g4 and the mac os was not dos...he was sure everything was dos like his windows 98 box he and all the other research scientists use
the sas program they have only works on 95 and 98:p
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
too many of those programs are only on pcs
one research scientist my wife works with started coding in dos on the mac compiler and if he succeeded in getting into the server, which would not happen anyway, he would have caused major damage
this phd had no idea that the g4 and the mac os was not dos...he was sure everything was dos like his windows 98 box he and all the other research scientists use
the sas program they have only works on 95 and 98:p
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:49 PM
NO nuclear.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
more...
rhinosrcool
Mar 18, 04:49 AM
stop gouging the customer. first we pay for 'unlimited' data thats capped at 5gb then they limit it to 2gb and force you to pay more to tether.
I totally agree.
I totally agree.
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
more...
aswitcher
Jul 13, 07:36 AM
I can see the iMac getting a makeover. The switch to intel was a rush job in my mind, and I think they are working on a modified shell to better cope with components and heat for a faster intel line for the next few years.
more...
