ct2k7
Mar 11, 04:43 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
alfonsog
Mar 18, 10:11 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
Huntn
Mar 11, 06:08 PM
Not one but two reactors could be headed for meltdown. U.S. Rushes Coolant to Japan Nuclear Plant to Prevent Meltdown (http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/u-s-rushes-coolant-to-japan-nuclear-plant-to-prevent-a-meltdown/). Primary power was lost. A backup generator failed to start. Plant is venting radioactive steam... God, I hope this does not happen.
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 09:09 PM
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
SugCain
Apr 13, 06:26 AM
I'm a full time editor of 12 years. I use FCP 5 days a week. Is it too much to ask for something as simple as being able to sort by date? IMO, that would put the "pro" in FCP.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 07:42 AM
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.
For your information I'm 26 work, I have a Masters, I'm a officer (imagery information analyst) for the defence force. In my line of work I get this inanely useless "hippy crap" 24 hour a day 7 days a week, kind of sick of hearing the same doom and gloom stories.
The majority of the people who put these studies out usually have ZERO idea of how to combat the problems, they say it's bad and when you ask how can we do something about it they have not a clue. Hence influencial people have a problem taking certain groups seriously, and hence my overly cynical response.
For your information I'm 26 work, I have a Masters, I'm a officer (imagery information analyst) for the defence force. In my line of work I get this inanely useless "hippy crap" 24 hour a day 7 days a week, kind of sick of hearing the same doom and gloom stories.
The majority of the people who put these studies out usually have ZERO idea of how to combat the problems, they say it's bad and when you ask how can we do something about it they have not a clue. Hence influencial people have a problem taking certain groups seriously, and hence my overly cynical response.
�algiris
Apr 28, 12:11 PM
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:34 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 10:45 PM
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith ...
I prefer dictionaries for my definitions.
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith ...
I prefer dictionaries for my definitions.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 12:49 PM
Here is a question. Why (if you want to see good games on the iphone) would you want Nintendo (and Sony's gaming department) to go away?
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Go away? i didn't say that.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Go away? i didn't say that.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
Alaerian
Apr 11, 11:03 AM
The only real advantage, aside from aesthetics, macs have over PC is more user friendly video/music editing. Speaking from experience here,
you can do the same on a PC, but it's slightly more difficult.
Unless you're buying some old/bad brand, a PC will normally give you greater hardware capabilities and you can always dual boot or just only use the Mac OS.
Of course, it's speaking about games, but that also doubles as video/music editing capability.
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
you can do the same on a PC, but it's slightly more difficult.
Unless you're buying some old/bad brand, a PC will normally give you greater hardware capabilities and you can always dual boot or just only use the Mac OS.
Of course, it's speaking about games, but that also doubles as video/music editing capability.
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
puma1552
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
The Beatles
Apr 21, 03:02 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Hey addicted, I agree. Who ever posted that comment has s*** for brains. It's such an ignorant comment. And that my friend is why America sucks, American citizens still don't realize why some have and others have not. I'm guessing he takes on consumer debt to buy his apple products. Good American robot.
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Hey addicted, I agree. Who ever posted that comment has s*** for brains. It's such an ignorant comment. And that my friend is why America sucks, American citizens still don't realize why some have and others have not. I'm guessing he takes on consumer debt to buy his apple products. Good American robot.
blumpy
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:17 AM
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Interstella5555
Mar 18, 10:51 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Napster's legit, and only porn hungry idiots who like downloadig viruses use limewire...
Napster's legit, and only porn hungry idiots who like downloadig viruses use limewire...
dudemac
Mar 18, 07:11 PM
DRM has everything
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.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
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.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
pkson
Apr 21, 08:41 PM
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
After reading through the whole thread, I really liked this post.
It's funny how the phrase "It just works" can be used in both ways.
The best part is that it comes from an un-disputable IT person. Thanks for putting in the weight. :)
Working smoothly is probably one of the biggest reasons the iPhone could gain so much ground.
So hats off to you sir.
PS. I love TI. My dad used to use an old TI scientific calculator in the 80s, and I still have a soft spot for TI. (Used to live in TX as well! haha)
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
After reading through the whole thread, I really liked this post.
It's funny how the phrase "It just works" can be used in both ways.
The best part is that it comes from an un-disputable IT person. Thanks for putting in the weight. :)
Working smoothly is probably one of the biggest reasons the iPhone could gain so much ground.
So hats off to you sir.
PS. I love TI. My dad used to use an old TI scientific calculator in the 80s, and I still have a soft spot for TI. (Used to live in TX as well! haha)
MorganK
May 9, 11:35 PM
I have a 3G and my calls keep dropping for no apparent reason. I'll look down right after it ends and have 0 bars then 2 seconds later, standing in the same spot, I will have full bars. It is quite frustrating. Good thing I text more than I talk though or else I'd be highly annoyed.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:32 PM
Because it is the third longest example of drift on PRSI (for now) and since appleguy123 started that one, of course he wants it to continue.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
javajedi
Oct 11, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:50 PM
I think being Catholic is a psychological problem, but it doesn't mean that I have any desire to deny Catholics the same rights as anyone else.
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these? When I discuss rights with liberal, they seldom say what kinds of rights they're talking about, and they never tell me what a right is as such. Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly. To see why, talk with a few postmodernists who refuse to define their jargon. They refuse to define it because they want to keep reinterpreting it.
This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Sorry, I wrote impulsively and didn't proofread what I wrote. Some here say there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological and/or environmental causes. I think it has both. But it's one thing to say that there's no evidence for what someone believes. It's something else to say that, although there is such evidence, no one has discovered it yet.
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these? When I discuss rights with liberal, they seldom say what kinds of rights they're talking about, and they never tell me what a right is as such. Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly. To see why, talk with a few postmodernists who refuse to define their jargon. They refuse to define it because they want to keep reinterpreting it.
This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Sorry, I wrote impulsively and didn't proofread what I wrote. Some here say there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological and/or environmental causes. I think it has both. But it's one thing to say that there's no evidence for what someone believes. It's something else to say that, although there is such evidence, no one has discovered it yet.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder