charliehustle
Oct 8, 05:03 PM
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
Redneck1089
Aug 29, 12:30 PM
Greenpeace can shove it.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Stage
Mar 18, 06:49 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
Number 41
Apr 15, 09:45 AM
no matter how you feel, people shouldn't be bullied.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
gopher
Oct 7, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by TheT
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 02:13 PM
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:13 AM
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
By hateful things, you're talking about people like the Westboro Baptist Church and their picket signs, right?
Certainly you don't mean, say, this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God�s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
You may not agree with that, but if you find it "hateful", you've basically decided to check out of any possibility of rational argument.
By hateful things, you're talking about people like the Westboro Baptist Church and their picket signs, right?
Certainly you don't mean, say, this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God�s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
You may not agree with that, but if you find it "hateful", you've basically decided to check out of any possibility of rational argument.
camarobh
Oct 7, 09:04 PM
No way. Apple will continue to release new hardware and updates as the iPhone continues through it's lifecycle. It is a recognized brand and like it or not, the control Apple exerts over the user experience maintains it's value.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Play Ultimate
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
WHAT!?!??!?
They just released a new 24" iMac last week and updated the others.
:eek:
WHAT!?!??!?
They just released a new 24" iMac last week and updated the others.
:eek:
MarkCollette
Sep 12, 08:31 PM
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size.
To be fair, these videos are encoded using H.264, which is a newer and more efficient codec, bitrate wise, than MPEG2 which is used in DVDs.
EDIT: Plus I think these are 640x480 progressive scan, whereas DVDs are interlaced. Sure, that'll take more space, but it will also give it better quality.
To be fair, these videos are encoded using H.264, which is a newer and more efficient codec, bitrate wise, than MPEG2 which is used in DVDs.
EDIT: Plus I think these are 640x480 progressive scan, whereas DVDs are interlaced. Sure, that'll take more space, but it will also give it better quality.
spillproof
Apr 13, 12:25 AM
I love me some timeline! I wonder what the student pricing will look like because as of now, I can pick up the full FCS for $300.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 10:57 PM
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
DroidRules
Apr 21, 12:10 AM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
I almost shot milk out my nose! Funny cause it's true. :D
http://youtu.be/8DYje57V_BY
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
I almost shot milk out my nose! Funny cause it's true. :D
http://youtu.be/8DYje57V_BY
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 05:06 PM
I used a few Bulletin boards on old 300 baud modems, and also Prestel in the UK at 1200/75 speeds.
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
And I thought the 14.4 modems were slow!
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
And I thought the 14.4 modems were slow!
dethmaShine
May 2, 10:36 AM
Sure it is Malware, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat to Mac users, a decent amount of Mac users are not very knowledgable when it comes to computers, I can see a lot of people going ahead with this install, why? well it says MacDefender, people could confuse it for an anti-virus software, so yeah I mean its entirely possible that someone could install this..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Malwares should be treated as strangers. Simple.
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Malwares should be treated as strangers. Simple.
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.
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
That's a pricey chip. You're not going to see killer single thread performance but multitasking would be insane.
kntgsp
Mar 18, 04:50 AM
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
Sydde
Mar 12, 01:02 PM
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time?
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
bruinsrme
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
Howdr
Mar 18, 12:56 PM
It's an unlimited iPhone data plan.
iPhone data plan. True
Not an unlimited iPhone + tethering data plan.
iPhone data plan. True
Not an unlimited iPhone + tethering data plan.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 20, 06:38 PM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:29 PM
The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort.
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
