rasmasyean
Mar 12, 02:27 AM
Guys,
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
Unless you are an expert with a background in chemical/nuclear engineering, and an expert not only on just nuclear reactors but also Japanese nuclear regulations, then you aren't really in a place to criticize from halfway around the world. We derive 30% of our power from nuclear reactors, we know what we are doing. We aren't unnecessarily paranoid about nuclear power like the west is.
We know very little about the situation with the Japanese reactors, and even less about the reactors themselves.
Comparing them to the 30+ year old standards of the impoverished USSR is rather inappropriate.
Phht...I guess you're new to the internet on this side of the world. You should check NewsVine...where every American is an expert in politics, science, engineering, sociology, pschology, blah blah blah...oh, yeah...the most popular field "economics" in these past years. And Digg...forget about it...that one extends down to the gutter expertise! ;)
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
I wouldn't take it personally. This is just how people are. I mean, when September 11 happened, I'm sure nearly everyone in the Middle East thought it was somewhat funny and joked a lot about it. It's just that most of them didn't have internet access. And then we wiped those smiles off their face by dropping 500 lb bombs on their "brothers"! :p
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
Unless you are an expert with a background in chemical/nuclear engineering, and an expert not only on just nuclear reactors but also Japanese nuclear regulations, then you aren't really in a place to criticize from halfway around the world. We derive 30% of our power from nuclear reactors, we know what we are doing. We aren't unnecessarily paranoid about nuclear power like the west is.
We know very little about the situation with the Japanese reactors, and even less about the reactors themselves.
Comparing them to the 30+ year old standards of the impoverished USSR is rather inappropriate.
Phht...I guess you're new to the internet on this side of the world. You should check NewsVine...where every American is an expert in politics, science, engineering, sociology, pschology, blah blah blah...oh, yeah...the most popular field "economics" in these past years. And Digg...forget about it...that one extends down to the gutter expertise! ;)
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
I wouldn't take it personally. This is just how people are. I mean, when September 11 happened, I'm sure nearly everyone in the Middle East thought it was somewhat funny and joked a lot about it. It's just that most of them didn't have internet access. And then we wiped those smiles off their face by dropping 500 lb bombs on their "brothers"! :p
more...
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:56 PM
I still regard nuclear fission as the best option among fossil fuel technologies to get us over the hump until alternative energy sources can cover 100% of demand and/or nuclear fusion is ready for commercial use. I still would prefer us to phase out coal, oil, gas and trash burning plants before we shut down our nuclear reactors as they have better carbon footprints and the mining of their fuel is overall less damaging than coal strip mining. Do we need to quickly move away from Gen I and II technology and get to at least III+ technology for all of our reactors, absolutely, but exiting nuclear fission technology at least in the short to midterm seems like a poor choice to me.
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
more...
benixau
Oct 10, 12:07 PM
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
odedia
Jul 12, 12:00 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)
Oded S.
Oded S.
more...
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:24 AM
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
latergator116
Mar 19, 08:51 AM
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
more...
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
more...
Gallery: Untitled
Deluxe Rolling Tool Box
Craftsman 4-Drawer Tool
more...
MirroFlex Flat Sheets
Craftsman Top amp; Base Tool
more...
this craftsman tool box.
more...
Re: Small portable tool box
more...
Craftsman roll away tool box
View Larger. CRAFTSMAN®
more...
big tool box whenever I went
Gallery: Untitled
more...
more...
more...
more...
more...
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
more...
emotion
Sep 21, 11:25 AM
The Quadro in the WMCE really puts up a superb 1080p picture - not sure that I'd want to compress the signal and send it over wireless...
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
weitzner
Sep 20, 01:42 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that iTV will NOT have DVR functionality- The iTunes store is a competitor to DVR. This thing is a means of connecting your computer (iTunes) to your TV- not about connecting your TV to your computer. It's a completely different take on watch-your-show-whenever-you-feel-like-it mentality.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:51 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
more...
bchreng
Apr 10, 12:09 PM
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
A remake of their 2D sidesscrollers 'Jill of the Jungle' and Jazz Jackrabbit for iOS would be freaking awesome! I own an iPad 2 as well as a Nintendo DS and can say that my iPad is currently getting way more gaming use. The games are way cheaper, can be just as fun, control just as well, look better and are much easier to lug around.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
A remake of their 2D sidesscrollers 'Jill of the Jungle' and Jazz Jackrabbit for iOS would be freaking awesome! I own an iPad 2 as well as a Nintendo DS and can say that my iPad is currently getting way more gaming use. The games are way cheaper, can be just as fun, control just as well, look better and are much easier to lug around.
stcanard
Mar 18, 12:13 PM
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 10:49 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
more...
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:49 AM
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
TBH, I've never used music sharing sites. I have actually obtained physical copies of the original CD and ripped that. Other hard to find songs I do buy. So, your whole napster deal doesn't apply to me.
As per tethering, hell to the NO am I changing to a tiered plan.
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
TBH, I've never used music sharing sites. I have actually obtained physical copies of the original CD and ripped that. Other hard to find songs I do buy. So, your whole napster deal doesn't apply to me.
As per tethering, hell to the NO am I changing to a tiered plan.
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:00 PM
I guess all this honour killing pretty much explains the original theory how freedom of women has been affected
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
I do understand that. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
I do understand that. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 09:49 AM
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
more...
jefhatfield
Oct 10, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
OneMammoth
May 2, 09:11 AM
About as huge as most windows ones!
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:28 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
more...
nagromme
Mar 18, 04:11 PM
I have no problem with people using this, as long as people don't use it for piracy. Easier methods exist for pirating music.
The record labels will have SOME problem with this, but--like CDs--you have to BUY the music first. That's not like people signing up for one month of Napster and stealing non-stop.
Apple will have a bigger problem with this--it was tough enough for them to convince the record industry to allow downloading at all, and they'll be extra sure to defend their system now that it's successful.
And it sounds easy for Apple to fix with a future iTunes update:
1) First, force iTunes to identify itself more strictly when connecting to the store.
2) Assuming that crackers keep finding ways to spoof the iTunes app anyway... send the songs to Akamai and to the iTunes app already encrypted. NOT with the account-specific DRM, just with standard 128-bit encryption, the SAME encryption for everyone. Only iTunes, not 3rd-party apps, would have the key to decrypt those files (and add the individual DRM).
3) If the crackers manage to extract the universal key from the iTunes app, Apple need only change the key every so often to interfere. Either as part of iTunes updates, and/or by obtaining a new key online so there's one more process crackers would have to spoof.
Thinking out loud. Anyway, one way or another, I imagine this is short-lived.
The existing, easy, legal method for stripping DRM--burning to CD--is here to stay. And you lose no quality. When you re-import, you ALSO lose no quality, as long as you can spare the HD space and use Apple Lossless etc. Looking at the long-term, HD space is getting cheap.
The record labels will have SOME problem with this, but--like CDs--you have to BUY the music first. That's not like people signing up for one month of Napster and stealing non-stop.
Apple will have a bigger problem with this--it was tough enough for them to convince the record industry to allow downloading at all, and they'll be extra sure to defend their system now that it's successful.
And it sounds easy for Apple to fix with a future iTunes update:
1) First, force iTunes to identify itself more strictly when connecting to the store.
2) Assuming that crackers keep finding ways to spoof the iTunes app anyway... send the songs to Akamai and to the iTunes app already encrypted. NOT with the account-specific DRM, just with standard 128-bit encryption, the SAME encryption for everyone. Only iTunes, not 3rd-party apps, would have the key to decrypt those files (and add the individual DRM).
3) If the crackers manage to extract the universal key from the iTunes app, Apple need only change the key every so often to interfere. Either as part of iTunes updates, and/or by obtaining a new key online so there's one more process crackers would have to spoof.
Thinking out loud. Anyway, one way or another, I imagine this is short-lived.
The existing, easy, legal method for stripping DRM--burning to CD--is here to stay. And you lose no quality. When you re-import, you ALSO lose no quality, as long as you can spare the HD space and use Apple Lossless etc. Looking at the long-term, HD space is getting cheap.
more...
vincenz
Mar 13, 05:26 PM
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
more...
SPUY767
Mar 19, 08:31 PM
You are one of the few moral and sane individuals who I see on this server. People who see beyond this robin hood mentality that permeates the computer world like a plague. People don't seem to feel as though they have done anything wrong when they have stolen something that is not physical.
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
more...
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:10 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Wait, you have evidence that AT&T has zero evidence?
Didn't think so.
For all you know, they're doing the same deep-packet inspections on their data network that wired broadband providers have been doing for years.
Wait, you have evidence that AT&T has zero evidence?
Didn't think so.
For all you know, they're doing the same deep-packet inspections on their data network that wired broadband providers have been doing for years.
more...
