RedTomato
Mar 15, 06:28 PM
Sorry doublepost but different topic now:
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
WikiLeaks cables show Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal.
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
WikiLeaks cables show Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal.
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
more...
hvfsl
Oct 8, 05:34 PM
Linux runs programs faster than windows on intel hardware so Apple has a fast OS, just not fast hardware. Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding and photoshop. But PCs are faster in games and 3D graphics. I have top of the range Macs and PCs at home and have done the tests. But the Macs speed is all thanks to AltiVec, if not a $1000 PC would be faster in PhotoShop than a top of the range Mac.
Tulse
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.The artist who recorded the piece, and the writer of the piece, are being denied the monetary compensation they are legally entitled to, so yes, someone is losing out on money.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
more...
FreeState
Mar 27, 10:09 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
more...
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:38 AM
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
That's a failure of the German politicians to make a case for nuclear power there (although I imagine that Germany has good potential for hydropower and other renewables).
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
That's a failure of the German politicians to make a case for nuclear power there (although I imagine that Germany has good potential for hydropower and other renewables).
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
more...
takao
Mar 13, 08:20 AM
might be better suited to the political forum
in reality nothing has really changed in my opinion it was just another event showing how the risks simply can't really be anticipated and also how the nuclear industry likes to reap the profits while not having to insure angainst any disasters _what so ever_
the society gets that burden + cost of potential failures
statistic wise: out of the 55 reactors: 5 were offline because of earlier incidents
of the remaining 51: 11 had emergency shutdowns, 5-6 had massive cooling failures, 2 (partial) meltdowns, including exploding structures
that with such a situation in japan some UK 'nuclear expert' professor goes to an austrian newspaper and talks about "how safe japans nuclear industry is" is just putting the icing on the cake
in reality nothing has really changed in my opinion it was just another event showing how the risks simply can't really be anticipated and also how the nuclear industry likes to reap the profits while not having to insure angainst any disasters _what so ever_
the society gets that burden + cost of potential failures
statistic wise: out of the 55 reactors: 5 were offline because of earlier incidents
of the remaining 51: 11 had emergency shutdowns, 5-6 had massive cooling failures, 2 (partial) meltdowns, including exploding structures
that with such a situation in japan some UK 'nuclear expert' professor goes to an austrian newspaper and talks about "how safe japans nuclear industry is" is just putting the icing on the cake
more...
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:18 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
more...
Backtothemac
Oct 9, 02:50 PM
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
CaoCao
Mar 24, 07:16 PM
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
more...
balamw
Sep 21, 08:22 AM
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
ET007
Mar 18, 02:48 PM
Just because a company makes you sign their TOS, it does not make the TOS a Holy Grail law. TOS are only written in the best interest of a company and they are very often faulty.
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:44 PM
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription.
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 02:06 PM
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
more...
TimUSCA
Sep 20, 02:01 PM
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box.
It used to be $300 for a lifetime subscription on TiVo... they took it away though.
It used to be $300 for a lifetime subscription on TiVo... they took it away though.
citizenzen
Mar 28, 11:49 AM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
more...
koobcamuk
Apr 8, 11:24 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
skunk
Mar 25, 11:14 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
more...
peharri
Sep 24, 05:18 PM
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:44 PM
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:27 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
more...
sawah
Mar 18, 01:14 PM
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
robbieduncan
Mar 13, 03:51 PM
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
more...
Machead III
Sep 20, 06:05 AM
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.