Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 03:35 PM
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 10:27 PM
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Reading the situation in America, I can see now why European atheists don't feel they have to back up their claims: they're rarely challenged on their positions.
It seems in America it's a touchy issue :\
Reading the situation in America, I can see now why European atheists don't feel they have to back up their claims: they're rarely challenged on their positions.
It seems in America it's a touchy issue :\
CQd44
May 2, 08:56 AM
"Huge" threat.
About as huge as most windows ones!
About as huge as most windows ones!
SRSound
Oct 29, 10:05 AM
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
ugahairydawgs
Mar 18, 08:03 AM
How exactly are they able to tell if someone is tethering or not?
bluap84
Mar 11, 09:24 AM
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
LOL i think it fitted the post just perfectly
back to OP theres a huge fire raging in Kesennumma...this quake is eating japan for breakfast, lunch and dinner...but i have seen some videos on youtube and im amazed that the japan population are just trying to get on with their normal days. Take this one for example: clicky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AobhPsc4Xfc)
LOL i think it fitted the post just perfectly
back to OP theres a huge fire raging in Kesennumma...this quake is eating japan for breakfast, lunch and dinner...but i have seen some videos on youtube and im amazed that the japan population are just trying to get on with their normal days. Take this one for example: clicky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AobhPsc4Xfc)
gugy
Aug 29, 12:27 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
Yes, and on top of that they elected 2 times G. W. Bush an "Oil" president.
Unfortunately things don't look good.
Yes, and on top of that they elected 2 times G. W. Bush an "Oil" president.
Unfortunately things don't look good.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 09:08 PM
If you want to argue about your religion(or lack there of), it's probably better to you use this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1019714). We've covered a lot of ground there.
This thread is about why there is a higher demographic of Atheists in this particular forum.
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
This thread is about why there is a higher demographic of Atheists in this particular forum.
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 10:51 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
ChrisA
Jul 12, 12:19 PM
Just as a data point for you all: I'm typing this on a dual processor Xeon runing at 3.6 Ghz.
Each procesor has 1M cache. The system has 4GB RAM and some 10K RPM Ultra-SCSI disks. It runs Linux. This system runs circles around any current Intel Mac. I'm not putting Mac down. Not at all. I just wanted to let you all know to expect a huge performane jump when these new dual and quad core woodcrest machines come out.
You want my guess about what's comming. Apple will offer a high-end dual Woodcrest, quad core "mac pro" and it will be expensive. But they will also offer a lower-end dual processor (Conroe) tower. in a mini-tower configuration. Call it a "Mac Pro Lite" for arounr $2K
Each procesor has 1M cache. The system has 4GB RAM and some 10K RPM Ultra-SCSI disks. It runs Linux. This system runs circles around any current Intel Mac. I'm not putting Mac down. Not at all. I just wanted to let you all know to expect a huge performane jump when these new dual and quad core woodcrest machines come out.
You want my guess about what's comming. Apple will offer a high-end dual Woodcrest, quad core "mac pro" and it will be expensive. But they will also offer a lower-end dual processor (Conroe) tower. in a mini-tower configuration. Call it a "Mac Pro Lite" for arounr $2K
joepunk
Mar 11, 08:13 PM
0143: Tokyo Electric Power releases more radioactive vapour from a second sticken reactor, AFP reports.
rikers_mailbox
Sep 20, 03:03 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Sydde
Mar 14, 12:56 PM
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
dukebound85
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
aricher
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 07:09 PM
I can understand why people would think this is a good thing. But at the same time, there are consequences for Apple. Apple sells others peoples songs, if they thought that selling to Apple would mean that their songs could be immediately transfered to P2P outlets they would be reluctant to supply ITMS with any songs.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
yg17
Mar 18, 03:02 PM
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
THX1139
Jul 12, 04:50 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
crackbookpro
Apr 13, 11:52 AM
I'm getting this, but I will still be using FC Studio 7 a ton... I agree with both sides a lot on these ongoing threads/disagreements on the new release of FCPX.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
roadbloc
Mar 13, 06:52 AM
So I heard you like Caesium-137 in your air.
desigarms
Feb 11, 12:42 PM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Load Sholmod..it's a open step, one package to root (hack) your phone.
And the coolest part about it is, it's made for people like you...meaning it's dummy proof! ;)
Load Sholmod..it's a open step, one package to root (hack) your phone.
And the coolest part about it is, it's made for people like you...meaning it's dummy proof! ;)
SuperCachetes
Mar 27, 09:35 AM
You need to learn how to read quoted text before reading a response.
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting. If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting. If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
rasmasyean
Mar 14, 08:30 PM
So, if they have a serious meltdown situation, the whole site could become so contaminated that no one who wants to live more than a few hours will be able to get anywhere near the other cores to keep the hoses on them? It would seem like one meltdown will take the rest of them with it, in a sort of chain reaction.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.