Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 12:33 AM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2MVcAZnowo), uploaded to YouTube yesterday, has some nuclear scientists from the University of Michigan discussing the situation in Japan as they see it. They do not seem to think that a Chernobyl-level of radiation emission incident is likely, but a large but lesser radiation leak of is still possible.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:04 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
I see where you are coming from, but these reports has nothing to do what you or I or MR thinks whether the iPad is *technically* a pc ... the reports are used to communicate to an audience interested in understanding where the market is heading so that they can make more money.
These are sales/shipment reports. The reason why the iPad is grouped in is because they compete for the same consumer dollar pool and execs from companies want to understand the direction of market and where the money is going.
If anything there's any criticism, I would like to see a consumer vs enterprise breakdown (since they have different dollar pools).
Also, I think the reason why 'Apple slipped' is because Calendar Q4 quarter is the holiday season and usually consumer electronics sales surges and unlike HP/Dell (who sell alot to enterprise), Apple sell mostly to consumers electronics market.
P.
I see where you are coming from, but these reports has nothing to do what you or I or MR thinks whether the iPad is *technically* a pc ... the reports are used to communicate to an audience interested in understanding where the market is heading so that they can make more money.
These are sales/shipment reports. The reason why the iPad is grouped in is because they compete for the same consumer dollar pool and execs from companies want to understand the direction of market and where the money is going.
If anything there's any criticism, I would like to see a consumer vs enterprise breakdown (since they have different dollar pools).
Also, I think the reason why 'Apple slipped' is because Calendar Q4 quarter is the holiday season and usually consumer electronics sales surges and unlike HP/Dell (who sell alot to enterprise), Apple sell mostly to consumers electronics market.
P.
Doctor Q
Mar 20, 06:21 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?
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Peterkro
Mar 13, 12:33 PM
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.
(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)
The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.
(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 12:20 PM
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
darkwing
Aug 29, 12:44 PM
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:58 PM
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Not the guys with the Money.
The mom and pops perhaps, but all the players know what is coming and are preparing for it via cooperative partnerships, sponsorships, viral, geurilla, etc.
Not the guys with the Money.
The mom and pops perhaps, but all the players know what is coming and are preparing for it via cooperative partnerships, sponsorships, viral, geurilla, etc.
onicon
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
Knowing how bullying feels like when it's done to you, no matter why or what the difference is, i really appreciate them doing this.
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
nick9191
Apr 22, 11:44 PM
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:26 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
dguisinger
Mar 19, 04:37 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
jettredmont
May 2, 11:50 AM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
I don't believe the default .zip file handler will expand these zip files correctly. It will only unzip inside its own folder. At least, that used to be the case. Perhaps there is an exploitable bug there which has cropped up more recently.
I suspect they are taking advantage of one of the other security holes in OS X to get items added to login items, etc. Presumably this is at the user level only so I'm not sure even a "standard" user will be less at risk (there are minor differences between admin and standard users, such as needing permission to add something to /Applications, but if the malware here (it isn't a virus as it doesn't self-propagate; it isn't a trojan as it isn't disguised on entry) relies on that permission it was just poorly written. Each user has an Applications folder that even standard users can write to.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
I don't believe the default .zip file handler will expand these zip files correctly. It will only unzip inside its own folder. At least, that used to be the case. Perhaps there is an exploitable bug there which has cropped up more recently.
I suspect they are taking advantage of one of the other security holes in OS X to get items added to login items, etc. Presumably this is at the user level only so I'm not sure even a "standard" user will be less at risk (there are minor differences between admin and standard users, such as needing permission to add something to /Applications, but if the malware here (it isn't a virus as it doesn't self-propagate; it isn't a trojan as it isn't disguised on entry) relies on that permission it was just poorly written. Each user has an Applications folder that even standard users can write to.
Lamarak
Jun 13, 01:55 PM
All I can say is AT&T in my area far better than Verizon here in San Antonio. Not saying they don't have their problems, but Verizon doesnt allow you to talk and use the web at same time, which Im sure helps some in the traffic thats on the network.
philbeeney
Mar 11, 01:51 PM
And to compound matters further, they've had a 6.2 on the west coast in Nigaata prefecture. Not looking good especially with all the aftershocks occurring.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 08:35 PM
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
Denarius
Mar 16, 01:08 PM
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I don't think the military needs to. The steady increase in global energy prices makes nuclear economic. If government says the word, nuclear stations will spring up from the private sector.
Beyond that, independence from oil is a recipe for peace. At least for us...
I don't think the military needs to. The steady increase in global energy prices makes nuclear economic. If government says the word, nuclear stations will spring up from the private sector.
Beyond that, independence from oil is a recipe for peace. At least for us...
jchung
Mar 18, 11:17 AM
I've never once tethered or hotspotted yet my usage for last month was over 9GB....this is just normal iPhone usage for me, they better not automatically change me to the tiered plan. :mad:
Check out this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
Its a long running problem for a lot of people. AT&T's accounting of data usage has been messed up for quite some time. I don't see how AT&T can justify any claim against someone when they can't correctly account for data usage.
Check out this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
Its a long running problem for a lot of people. AT&T's accounting of data usage has been messed up for quite some time. I don't see how AT&T can justify any claim against someone when they can't correctly account for data usage.
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 10:48 AM
It's astonishing that people still listen and follow a bunch of kid ****ers.
Yeah, its ridiculous. In my eyes the catholic church and the church of scientology are on the same level. Both are great businesses and make a lot of money, which would be ok if they were actually taxed. And they say jews are good businessmen...
Yeah, its ridiculous. In my eyes the catholic church and the church of scientology are on the same level. Both are great businesses and make a lot of money, which would be ok if they were actually taxed. And they say jews are good businessmen...
wnurse
Mar 19, 11:02 PM
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 09:00 AM
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:32 PM
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.