Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 03:43 PM
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
Probably, but it's speculation.
Probably, but it's speculation.
more...
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 09:22 PM
Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
more...
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:46 PM
One word.
Battery.
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Battery.
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
more...
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...
Demoman
Jul 13, 12:59 AM
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
more...
desdomg
Mar 21, 02:52 AM
I still say **** it and download mp3s - the music catalogue on iTMS is awful anyway. It may be "illegal" but there are lots of illegal things that most people do anyway and the world hasn't come to a stop. In the UK a few years back we had the Tory government introduce a new tax called the Poll Tax. Its introduction caused mass riots and non payment. Eventually the government had no choice but to change the law. We live in a democracy for crying out loud. The way half of you are arguing with your "its illegal" ******** sounds like we live in a corporate state. The music industry needs to be forced to introduce price competition - not force the consumer to pay rediculous prices for a song. $1 is crazy pricing. Let the market decide.
more...
Peterkro
Mar 13, 03:01 PM
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
more...
chakraj
Mar 18, 12:30 PM
Dont you all understand, Unlimited is the name of the plan not the discription of the amount of data used.
Much like the Ford LTD, or Limited, they were just named LTD, they were not actually a limited edition vehicle.
ATT REP; Hello sir, would you like to sign up for our unlimited data plan? with that plan you get 5gigs, you can use anyway you want, as long as it is viewing facebook or google only, any other web traffic is not in your unlimited plan. For that you would need our world wide Unlimited web access plan. With that plan you get 5gigs and you also get to look at youtube and Amazon. If you want more there is our unlimited universal time and space plan. With that plan you get everything from the other unlimited plan plus you get access to ebay!. for a limited time..
Much like the Ford LTD, or Limited, they were just named LTD, they were not actually a limited edition vehicle.
ATT REP; Hello sir, would you like to sign up for our unlimited data plan? with that plan you get 5gigs, you can use anyway you want, as long as it is viewing facebook or google only, any other web traffic is not in your unlimited plan. For that you would need our world wide Unlimited web access plan. With that plan you get 5gigs and you also get to look at youtube and Amazon. If you want more there is our unlimited universal time and space plan. With that plan you get everything from the other unlimited plan plus you get access to ebay!. for a limited time..
more...
mi5moav
Sep 20, 08:29 AM
I have a feeling that Apple and Disney are going to partner up on this ITV and somehow integrate MovieBeam into it. I am sure there are already plans in the work. Disney has cut the price on this great technology and this is one piece of technology I wouldn't give up. So, much better then running to the store and the definition of the movies are great. For $52 bucks you get you own video Store. Decent prices on rentals. A lot better then $299 no way will I get iTV but for $199 with moviebeam built in it's possible.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:37 PM
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
If that's the case, then it's coal or nuclear or combined cycle NG. (http://www.greenbang.com/energy-storage-critical-to-future-grid_16067.html) Which means coal or nuclear because combined cycle NG is too expensive to run 24/7.
But I really hope battery tech will improve over the next couple decades. From a design standpoint there really no other practical alternative. We can't build dams or pumped hydro stations or compressed air shafts everywhere. This article (http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=849) shows where we're at right now, technology wise.
If that's the case, then it's coal or nuclear or combined cycle NG. (http://www.greenbang.com/energy-storage-critical-to-future-grid_16067.html) Which means coal or nuclear because combined cycle NG is too expensive to run 24/7.
But I really hope battery tech will improve over the next couple decades. From a design standpoint there really no other practical alternative. We can't build dams or pumped hydro stations or compressed air shafts everywhere. This article (http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=849) shows where we're at right now, technology wise.
more...
iJohnHenry
Mar 25, 06:50 PM
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
I try to, but public service keeps dragging me away.
And it's getting damn annoying.
I try to, but public service keeps dragging me away.
And it's getting damn annoying.
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 09:47 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 09:01 PM
As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.
That was a poor example, I admit. The wedding video situation is fairly complicated, depending on whether you're selling the video (which doesn't seem to be the case) and on the manner in which the song is used. If the song is played in the background by a DJ and it winds up in your video, there's not really an issue. Putting it in in the editing process would fall under fair use for private viewing, but because it's something you're sending out, I can't say off the top of my head whether this is also fair use. You are protected under the law for making mix tapes and CDs, even if you give them away in small numbers. If you make a wedding video and send out two or three copies, I believe this is still considered private viewing. If you send out the video to more than a handful of wedding guests, then you are redistributing and have to obtain permission.
That was a poor example, I admit. The wedding video situation is fairly complicated, depending on whether you're selling the video (which doesn't seem to be the case) and on the manner in which the song is used. If the song is played in the background by a DJ and it winds up in your video, there's not really an issue. Putting it in in the editing process would fall under fair use for private viewing, but because it's something you're sending out, I can't say off the top of my head whether this is also fair use. You are protected under the law for making mix tapes and CDs, even if you give them away in small numbers. If you make a wedding video and send out two or three copies, I believe this is still considered private viewing. If you send out the video to more than a handful of wedding guests, then you are redistributing and have to obtain permission.
more...
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 12:08 PM
And Fear.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 12:43 PM
I think we'd all agree it'd be nice for Apple to have more of a worldwide presence. As for emerging technologies, global efforts require a lot more research and funding than if Apple were to just stay in the U.S. That's why Apple's technologies always start here.
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:38 AM
OMG you still done get it:
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
more...
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 06:08 PM
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
more...
jonnysods
Apr 9, 02:07 PM
Very exciting. Can't wait to see where this is all headed.
Imagine iPhone 7, 8, 9, they are going to be incredible!
Imagine iPhone 7, 8, 9, they are going to be incredible!
Chappers
Mar 11, 04:26 AM
Sadly death toll rises to 29
Having been in a big quake - I know how scary it is and hope that all their preparation helps.
Having been in a big quake - I know how scary it is and hope that all their preparation helps.
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 02:31 PM
You can give a god any attributes you want.
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:23 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:00 PM
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
more...
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 11:59 AM
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality?
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
more...
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий