QCassidy352
Mar 18, 11:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
wpwj40e
Sep 12, 05:52 PM
ABout the only real use I saw for thi sdevice was for the stuff Ihave recorded form elgato 500. Sinc eit dumps it into my itunes library - theoretically I should be able to access it. However, 5 gig files streaming are simply not pretty - and I do not want 640 * 480 on my HDTV.
WHile I "get" the direction of this product - I am not sure where its marketing position is at. Most can easily buy an upconverting DVD player for around $50-60 - connect to their TV and buy tons of movies (and own them) at 10-15.
Much higher resolution - no streaming issues...in fact for the average user this is a MUCH easier solution than downloading a movie - figuring out how to enable their various "apple" wireless devices to talk, connecting this box to the TV and dealing with any streaming hiccups....And they also get a much higher resolution - filling up their whole widescreen. Most users already complain about the black bars across the top and bottom - can you hear it when the entire "dvd download" is letterboxed?
I really wanted to like today's announcmeents - and now am just confused.
WHile I "get" the direction of this product - I am not sure where its marketing position is at. Most can easily buy an upconverting DVD player for around $50-60 - connect to their TV and buy tons of movies (and own them) at 10-15.
Much higher resolution - no streaming issues...in fact for the average user this is a MUCH easier solution than downloading a movie - figuring out how to enable their various "apple" wireless devices to talk, connecting this box to the TV and dealing with any streaming hiccups....And they also get a much higher resolution - filling up their whole widescreen. Most users already complain about the black bars across the top and bottom - can you hear it when the entire "dvd download" is letterboxed?
I really wanted to like today's announcmeents - and now am just confused.
Carl Spackler
Sep 12, 04:29 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I don't know why it wouldn't. Isn't iTunes basically and interface for Quicktime? I would imagine anything one can play in QT, you can play through this.
All it is is Apple's version of a media extender. I would, however, like an optical drive, but I can't see the price staying at $299 if they add Blu Ray. Otherwise, I think it's a fair price for a quality piece of equipment. Roku's SoundBridge M2000 is $299. For the same price I get to also sent 1080p content to my home theatre. Sign me up.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I don't know why it wouldn't. Isn't iTunes basically and interface for Quicktime? I would imagine anything one can play in QT, you can play through this.
All it is is Apple's version of a media extender. I would, however, like an optical drive, but I can't see the price staying at $299 if they add Blu Ray. Otherwise, I think it's a fair price for a quality piece of equipment. Roku's SoundBridge M2000 is $299. For the same price I get to also sent 1080p content to my home theatre. Sign me up.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:37 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to? You and I. Just like everybody is.
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to? You and I. Just like everybody is.
jegbook
Apr 12, 04:20 PM
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
+99
Really, the original post was totally reasonable.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
+99
Really, the original post was totally reasonable.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 04:06 PM
I believe in God or a higher power as some would call it.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
CaoCao
Mar 26, 08:37 PM
Poor archbishop Tomasi hasn't been able to accept that the public is increasingly appalled with his church's stance on sex and that the public is increasingly offended by his church's continuing attempts to impose its beliefs on the general public.
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
manu chao
Mar 19, 11:50 AM
By using Jon's tool, you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY are violating an agreement that you yourself agreed to.
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 02:00 PM
Thankyou Jerry!
res1233
May 2, 10:28 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
balamw
Sep 21, 12:27 AM
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
adroit
Aug 29, 01:14 PM
Not that this would make a big difference but according to the following Greenpeace's posted report:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf
Apple actually scored 8/27 (or round up to 3/10) instead of 2.7/10 as what the website posted. Fujisu-Simens Rankins is also wrong. Their score is 7/27 (or 2.7/10).
I think they got the two scores mixed up. So this would bring apple up one spot to a tie with Toshiba, setting them in the middle of the pack. ;)
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf
Apple actually scored 8/27 (or round up to 3/10) instead of 2.7/10 as what the website posted. Fujisu-Simens Rankins is also wrong. Their score is 7/27 (or 2.7/10).
I think they got the two scores mixed up. So this would bring apple up one spot to a tie with Toshiba, setting them in the middle of the pack. ;)
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.
imperium
Sep 26, 12:05 PM
We miss you over on the "WTF? Where's my C2D MBP?" thread! Good luck with your 8-core wait.. :p
backinblack875
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
dethmaShine
May 2, 10:36 AM
Sure it is Malware, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat to Mac users, a decent amount of Mac users are not very knowledgable when it comes to computers, I can see a lot of people going ahead with this install, why? well it says MacDefender, people could confuse it for an anti-virus software, so yeah I mean its entirely possible that someone could install this..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Malwares should be treated as strangers. Simple.
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Malwares should be treated as strangers. Simple.
shawnce
Jul 12, 05:07 PM
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.
All of the Core / Core 2 based processors support SMP (they have two cores after all) but only the Xeon class chips and related chipset supports the ability to have more then a single CPU socket.
2006 TOYOTA SCION XA SALVAGE
All of the Core / Core 2 based processors support SMP (they have two cores after all) but only the Xeon class chips and related chipset supports the ability to have more then a single CPU socket.
Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 18, 11:04 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:
Well did u get the text/email?
Wait hold on.... Sharing food is illegal?
Really?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not... but he didn't say it was illegal necessarily, but it is stealing and wrong, and the restaurant certainly would stop you if they caught you. Did you read the context? Like if you went with a group of friends to a buffet, but only one person paid then that person kept going back through the line getting food for everyone else.
But back to the original topic, I really hope that at&t won't be able to spot a 4.3 tether. I've kept my unlimited all year, and never once tethered. In fact usually I'm under 1gb (but one month I did netflix like crazy and I was over 4gb). But I have been hanging on to this because one day I might need it. And now that day has come, with my wifi iPad 2. That would really suck that now that I finally want to tether, I won't be able to. Now I'll just have been paying at&t tons of cash for no reason...
Well did u get the text/email?
Wait hold on.... Sharing food is illegal?
Really?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not... but he didn't say it was illegal necessarily, but it is stealing and wrong, and the restaurant certainly would stop you if they caught you. Did you read the context? Like if you went with a group of friends to a buffet, but only one person paid then that person kept going back through the line getting food for everyone else.
But back to the original topic, I really hope that at&t won't be able to spot a 4.3 tether. I've kept my unlimited all year, and never once tethered. In fact usually I'm under 1gb (but one month I did netflix like crazy and I was over 4gb). But I have been hanging on to this because one day I might need it. And now that day has come, with my wifi iPad 2. That would really suck that now that I finally want to tether, I won't be able to. Now I'll just have been paying at&t tons of cash for no reason...
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
puma1552
Mar 15, 09:23 AM
Yes. All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
I shouldn't even be taking the bait from someone who's posting with such a jackass style, who doesn't even know hydrogen is flammable (helium my ass), but here's a nuclear expert and fellow telling it to you, exactly like it is:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/03/13/stevens.grimston.japan.nuclear.cnn.html
Yes. Radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits.
I don't think you understand how minute that still is. I don't think you understand that it still would need to be magnitudes higher to even be remotely harmful.
Move along.
---------
As was quoted in my quote of the quoted article you quoted:
You want to be pedantic about 'front door' and 'outside the plant'?
I think we all already know without requiring puma's three degrees in atom science that the further away from it you are the less radioactivity there is. Hence the word 'evacuate'.
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
I shouldn't even be taking the bait from someone who's posting with such a jackass style, who doesn't even know hydrogen is flammable (helium my ass), but here's a nuclear expert and fellow telling it to you, exactly like it is:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/03/13/stevens.grimston.japan.nuclear.cnn.html
Yes. Radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits.
I don't think you understand how minute that still is. I don't think you understand that it still would need to be magnitudes higher to even be remotely harmful.
Move along.
---------
As was quoted in my quote of the quoted article you quoted:
You want to be pedantic about 'front door' and 'outside the plant'?
I think we all already know without requiring puma's three degrees in atom science that the further away from it you are the less radioactivity there is. Hence the word 'evacuate'.
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:45 PM
Yes there are. In theistic belief.
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
Therbo
May 2, 09:29 AM
I am not concerned with malware that requires user intervention and a few clicks to install things. I am more concerned with malware that installs silently without you seeing any pop-ups or stuff like that.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
If it wants to infect the system fully, it can't do that silently, unless you have no password or a weak one set for your account.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
I would just call it scareware.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
If it wants to infect the system fully, it can't do that silently, unless you have no password or a weak one set for your account.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
I would just call it scareware.
jrhone
Jul 11, 11:06 PM
AWESOME.....I will buy one as SOON as its released.....Logic Pro with Woodcrest......YUMMMM.....
No comments:
Post a Comment