Edge100
Apr 15, 01:14 PM
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
What about slavery? Does a "true Christian" support (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18) slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5)?
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
What about slavery? Does a "true Christian" support (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18) slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5)?
Mord
Jul 12, 05:40 PM
Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel
diamond.g
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
EagerDragon
Jul 12, 12:20 PM
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?
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.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 01:10 PM
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
R.Perez
Apr 15, 02:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
Derekasaurus
Sep 12, 03:27 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
I think they did it because iTV doesn't really threaten any existing Apple products, so people aren't likely to hold off buying something while they wait for it. It's still odd behavior from Apple, but I'm not complaining.
I think they did it because iTV doesn't really threaten any existing Apple products, so people aren't likely to hold off buying something while they wait for it. It's still odd behavior from Apple, but I'm not complaining.
iMeowbot
Sep 20, 09:05 AM
I'm liking the sound of this disk feature. Perhaps this will be the stationary iPod I was hoping the Hifi would be.
manic
Jul 12, 09:23 AM
I disagree with the line of thought that Macbooks will remain with yonah processors. heres why:
intel has announced merom will ship at the same price point as yonah. they are pin compatible. Apple can, therefore, simply fit the chips without increasing the macbooks price point/ incurring in high engeneering costs.
One might say: oh, but theyll do it to differentiate the mb from the mbp.
Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom. this will increase after its been released. if they choose to keep yonah just to justify the price gap between the mb and the mbp, theyll be alienating buyers y crippling its product without sound reason. Mac users are tech savvy. theyd be put off by being forced to by a yonah notebook with merom widely available. It will happen and its Intels merit.
lastly, lets not forget the "dell factor". If apples consumer laptops are ony available with yonah, and dells consumer laptops are fitted with merom at the same price point, I think we would see a lot of would be switchers not switching.
Conclusion: all apple would benefit from keeping yonahs in the macbooks would be to make mbp users feel happier about their machines. on the other hand, it would lose sales of macbook from customers (i) not switching or (ii) further delaying their purchase. Doesnt make business sense to me
intel has announced merom will ship at the same price point as yonah. they are pin compatible. Apple can, therefore, simply fit the chips without increasing the macbooks price point/ incurring in high engeneering costs.
One might say: oh, but theyll do it to differentiate the mb from the mbp.
Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom. this will increase after its been released. if they choose to keep yonah just to justify the price gap between the mb and the mbp, theyll be alienating buyers y crippling its product without sound reason. Mac users are tech savvy. theyd be put off by being forced to by a yonah notebook with merom widely available. It will happen and its Intels merit.
lastly, lets not forget the "dell factor". If apples consumer laptops are ony available with yonah, and dells consumer laptops are fitted with merom at the same price point, I think we would see a lot of would be switchers not switching.
Conclusion: all apple would benefit from keeping yonahs in the macbooks would be to make mbp users feel happier about their machines. on the other hand, it would lose sales of macbook from customers (i) not switching or (ii) further delaying their purchase. Doesnt make business sense to me
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 01:19 PM
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
firestarter
Apr 24, 12:16 PM
I'm not trying to further some Christian agenda or proselytise. I'm saying these things because I would rather support Christianity/Judaism/Atheism/whatever than Islam.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
Blasphemy is only one aspect of religious control and oppression in society.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
Blasphemy is only one aspect of religious control and oppression in society.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
Fotek2001
Sep 20, 05:54 AM
actually... he doesn't indicate a HD... why? well the iTV (sorry, not really impressed with this name) streams...
You don't need to be impressed with the name 'iTV' because it's a code name... There are at least three companies in this space using similar names already so Apple wouldn't be able to use it even if they wanted to.
You don't need to be impressed with the name 'iTV' because it's a code name... There are at least three companies in this space using similar names already so Apple wouldn't be able to use it even if they wanted to.
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 05:54 AM
You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not.
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.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
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 - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
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.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
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 - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
~loserman~
Mar 20, 06:28 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.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
asdf542
Apr 13, 05:03 AM
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
louis Fashion
Apr 9, 12:04 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Hey the more games the better. Who knows they might have the next great thing.....
Hey the more games the better. Who knows they might have the next great thing.....
acearchie
Apr 13, 03:14 AM
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
No one forces you to own a TV or a TV licence for that matter?
No one forces you to own a TV or a TV licence for that matter?
skunk
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
WilliamG
May 30, 09:59 PM
I drop so many calls on AT&T; 3G that it's a joke. I drop basically no calls on AT&T; EDGE. Seattle, here.
AppliedVisual
Oct 24, 04:38 PM
In three years they will have something much better, might as well wait!:p
Yeah, I'm not buying until the 32" 4K resolution monitors hit $1599. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I'm not buying until the 32" 4K resolution monitors hit $1599. :rolleyes:
jchung
Mar 18, 11:07 AM
Hopefully this will lighten the strain on the network.
The network load claims from AT&T; are a bit of a red herring. Don't trust their numbers as they can't get the accounting right on their end anyway. See this long running thread on Apple's forum - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
For those of you on the tiered plan... watch the data usage closely on AT&T;'s account management site. Make sure it matches what you know of your usage. For many people, AT&T;'s accounting of data usage does not match their own use of the device.
AT&T; MUST fix their accounting before they have a moral leg to stand on to pull a stunt like this.
For those of you complaining about the theft of service, how about the theft of money from the customer by AT&T;?
The network load claims from AT&T; are a bit of a red herring. Don't trust their numbers as they can't get the accounting right on their end anyway. See this long running thread on Apple's forum - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
For those of you on the tiered plan... watch the data usage closely on AT&T;'s account management site. Make sure it matches what you know of your usage. For many people, AT&T;'s accounting of data usage does not match their own use of the device.
AT&T; MUST fix their accounting before they have a moral leg to stand on to pull a stunt like this.
For those of you complaining about the theft of service, how about the theft of money from the customer by AT&T;?
