How the heck would they know the number of years ago that 'x' happened... Simple: Study archeological finds. Ever heard of carbon dating? No, it's not a new dating show on Fox. It's the method used to determine the age of archeological finds. Look here for more info: The OCR Carbon Dating home page In case you didn't understand what they said there, it basically means they have a constant (the rate of decay during a specific amount of time) which they can apply to a variable (current state of decay) to find out how long it took for the variable to get that way.
Numbers as large as the ones quoted by scientists are never 'absolute facts' nor should they be taken as such. They are simply the closest estimates based on the information they have.
Remember, there are always three sides to every story: what you say, what I say, and then there's the truth. I say evolution, you say no evolution, but we're probably both wrong. But right now, those are the only two options we have, and to me evolution makes more sense.
But, back to the topic at hand. Personally I don't think any of us will live to see talking animals, but who knows what might happen 500 generations from now?
If you're going to pay as much as Dell and its competitors charge for an OEM box, you can afford the additional $100 for the unnecessary Windows license. OK, so if you can afford a big screen television, you can afford a $30 monthly basic cable bill, even if you don't want or use the service, right?
Funny... but off target. Lucas OWNS Star Wars, he can replace Luke's speeder with a flying camel if he wants to. It's HIS. Blockbuster, and that Salt Lake (read: Mormon) video store has NO RIGHT to mutilate movies and then pass them off as the original work. Even if they put a warning sticker on it. Even if the customer asks for it. Video stores are in the business of renting movies to consumers, not editing them to suit their own religious or political beliefs. Only the owner of the copyright has the right to change the contents. End of story.
Since the copyright laws specify you're paying for the CONTENT not the MEDIUM it is stored on, it makes perfect sense to ensure the content you've paid for will remain in your posession even if the storage medium fails for some reason.
You get another bag at the grocery store if the first bag rips on the way out, right? Or would you leave the groceries on the sidewalk? Of course not. You've already paid for them. Now imagine if the store told you you'd have to pay for the groceries again in order to get a new bag. Same thing as when a record store asks you to pay full price for a replacement cd.
We very much need a test case with a judgment in favor of consumer rights. We need a legal case to which we can point, when we're arguing what our rights really are...
Personally, I've used one of those anti-macrovision boxes (I got mine for $50) and it works great. I didn't create the technology, and I've only used it in the privacy of my own home, excercising my 'fair use' rights as a consumer, so I should probably be safe.
The methodical corporate destruction of consumer rights must be stopped.
The reason why they're going with the old red-ray instead of the new blue-ray is very simple:
Backwards compatibility.
The only way they can entice people to buy a new HD DVD player, is if it can play their old SD DVD's as well. Now, of course one could conceivably build a player with both red and blue ray lenses, but sticking with red-ray only means manufacturing the players will be cheaper. Cheaper players means faster implementation in the market place. Don't forget, it's all about the Benjamins...
What if you're running an FTP server? AT&T as well as many other ISP's have said they'd be willing to sniff packets coming from users who seem to send 'large files' often. But that's still besides the point. The point is, nobody, I repeat NOBODY has the right to search your hard drive for illegal content if there's no evidence of illegal content in the first place without searching the drive.
Let's make this simple. Would you feel OK about a liquor manufacturer being legally allowed to search your house without a warrant, without even notifying you, just because you bought a lot of sugar and they want to make sure you're not using it to make moonshine? Why not get a search warrant for anyone who buys blank CD's in packs of 100, as I do regularly? Surely I must be downloading and burning something illegal, right? This is total BS. Any judge would laugh if a cop asked for a warrant on this weak a basis.
The main thing is that without prior knowledge, or reasonable suspicion of something illegal (which cannot be established on a 'hunch', you must have some form of proof), search and seasure without a warrant is illegal (airports and security posts are different because there you knowingly and willingly go through a security check). You can't just walk into a house and say "let me see your videos, so I can verify they've all been legally aquired" just because you feel like it. But that's exactly the right those jackasses are asking for. This is beginning to sound way too much like Gestapo tactics... "Papieren, bitte!".
I'm sure if you look close enough, you'll find everybody has something dirty in their laundry. Does that mean you have the right to look? No.
What's to stop the government from getting us to monitor other innocent people, looking for suspicious behaviour? Oh, wait... TIPS, anyone?
You know in advance that your computer will not work. OK, so it's ok to violate your rights as long as you're told about it first... cool.
Its simple to keep your computer working, don't install a pirated copy of Windows XP. Who said anything about piracy? I'm just thinking about the average guy who needs to use XP because some application only works on XP and goes out and buys the bloody thing, but still doesn't want Microsoft to maintain a DB outlining his hardware and software buying habits so they can better target advertisement space on msn.com towards him.
It's also unconstitutional under the 'unreasonable search and seizure' clause of the 4th amendment. It used to be that in order to search your harddrive, the feds or local law enforcement would need a court order, or provide the court with probable cause. Searching illegally first, and then demonstrating probable cause by pointing out what they found, doesn't cut it. Probable cause must be demonstrated before searching of private property is allowed. But now, we're talking about big corporations getting a free pass from the government to watch over law abiding citizens to make sure they're not breaking the law in their own homes? How about we set up a camera and a microphone in every home to make sure people don't break any laws at home? Hey, it might cut down on domestic violence. The end justifies the means, right? Where will this end? Oh, one possible solution: get out in November and vote for the guys running against these pinheads, regardless of party affiliation. Write to your congressman. We need a Consumer Rights lobbying group.
it's called Product Activation. Without activating the product and thereby 'proving' you have a legal copy, the OS will stop functioning, which is basically a denial of service.
OK, isn't that a little like moving to avoid crap through your mailslot? Or perhaps I should get a P.O.Box and change it regularly? The hell with all my subscriptions. Methinks it's pretty obvious this judge doesn't even have an email address to begin with. He's never gotten spam, so he can't possibly know wtf he's talking about.
A $25.000 Mac with a CineWave-RT HD card running Final Cut Pro supports uncompressed HD. So does the $200.000 HD Avid similar to the one used to cut SW-EP2. A few other high end editing packages work in uncompressed HD. How else are you gonna do an online HD edit? You may use compressed while you're editing the offline (online=the final master made to conform the offline; offline=where you do the creative part of editing, so lower quality is ok), but you need uncompressed to finalize the master. There's even an uncompressed HD professional system which costs as much as a big house in a good area which does pretty much anything you want in realtime. Check out ProMax for basic Final Cut Pro based systems that handle uncompressed HD. These systems use Medéa SCSI-3 RAID towers for the hard drive space, which can pump out the necessary 200+ mb/s needed for uncompressed HD (168mb/s for 24p). I'm working on visual effects for a movie shot on 24p HD right now, and it's being done in uncompressed HD, so I know a tiny bit about this stuff.
I heard somewhere that the VW Beetle was originally not designed with aerodynamics in mind. Remember this was back in the 1930's. Supposedly, the reason behind it's bubble shape, was to streamline the production. More specifically, the painting process. Instead of spray painting, they dipped. Apparently, they hung the body shells upside down on the assembly line which dipped them into a tank. The shape of the body allowed the paint to drip off the back of the body properly. Or perhaps it was just the cleaning process before the paint... I'm not sure, but this is what I heard.
Funny how nobody who responds to this is a logged in user...
Having considered the matter, I see where I erred, but that doesn't mean I was completely in error... Let's look at both sides of the issue.
The Torque Wrench is what applies the torque in that analogy (and only does so because you're turning it) and not the bolt it is attached to. It is therefore measuring the resistance to the amount of torque the wrench is applying to the bolt, not how much torque the bolt generates at 0-rpm. If the bolt starts turning with the wrench, the wrench has exceeded the opposing force preventing the rotation of the bolt (the resistance). A force which isn't there in the first place until the wrench starts pulling on it. If you want to find out how tightly a bolt is fastened, you have to watch the wrench to see exactly where the needle is at the exact moment the bolt loosens. At that point, the force the wrench applies to the bolt has exceeded the counterforce (the resistance).
The electro-magnetic force in an electric motor applies to the rotor, but a brake which applies at least an equal amount of opposing force on the rotor prevents it from turning over. So, anything connected to the rotor will not have any torque asserted on it, not even if you were to attach a torque wrench unless you're using the torque wrench as a break. Let's say the force on the rotor is 100Nm, if the brake applies 100Nm in the opposite direction, the total power-output will be 0Nm. Release the break and the rotor will start turning. My point was, since torque is twisting power, torque cannot be measured without twist. The magnetic force in the motor is not actually torque, it is the magnetic pulling force which gets transformed into torque by the rotation of the rotor, just like the combustion in an internal combustion engine needs to push the piston down to rotate the crankshaft which then generates the twisting power measured at the flywheel as torque.
Now, on the other hand... the magnetic force which rotates the rotor could of course be classified as twisting force, even when the rotor stands still, and as such would still qualify as torque as it is defined. So, in that sense electric motors do in fact have internal torque at 0-rpm, but only if it is being held at 0-rpm by a brake. If there's no current passing through it, the magnetic force isn't created in the first place so there is no torque, and no rotation.
So, bottom line: The magnetic power in a 'braked' electric motor can be classified as torque. The 'torque wrench' argument, has nothing to do with the issue. Neither does "learn some physics". And my favorite argument: If electric motors couldn't apply torque at zero rpm then all of those toy radio controled cars would need a clutch!!! Well.. Electric toy cars don't need clutches simply because no power is being passed to the motor until you press go. Just like an electric drill doesn't produce any torque until you pull the trigger. In fact, that argument was a contradiction in terms. The toy cars would absolutely need clutches (or brakes) if the motors generated torque at 0-rpm, now THAT is common sense.:)
Even though it was wrong of me to generalize that way about electric motors (and was affected by my brain being stuck in 'internal combustion engine' mode), none of the arguments posted even tried to further the opposing argument. All the logic applied was in fact the opposite of what actually happens in a motor, mechanical or electric. I still see their point, even if they didnt see mine. Funny.
Anyway. I was wrong... but that doesn't mean you were entirely right. There are three sides to every argument. What I say, what you say, and then there's the truth.
In any case... I consider this argument finished, and has in fact slid a bit off-topic, so this will be the last post from me on this matter.
Heck, 1TB barely anything today... I have 460 GB in my main PC. 40+40+60+120+100+100. 1 TB can just barely hold a full length feature film in High Definition 24p (1920x1080 24fps is 7MB/frame ; 168MB/sec ; 10GB/min, so 90 mins = 900GB). So.. I'll be happy when I can get a TB device or even a PB or beyond. The bigger the better! 100Ghz? Bring it on! 100GB RAM? Where do I sign up? Of course... I'm a gadget junkie... so I'm not really the best example, but still.
By carping about this, all you guys are doing is proving my point for me. The point being: nobody knows anything about the origins of the universe; everything is speculation at best. Scientists have never said "this is the way it is, and if you don't accept it, we will round you up and kill you." like many religious zealots have. Bottom line: religion pretends to have an explanation for everything, science doesn't have the explanations for everything (and probably never will simply because of the vastness of the universe) but at least they're looking for the answer rather than saying "this is it, let's stop looking!"
Typical Atheist. You sir, are an ignorant fucking moron. Typical answer of someone who just lost an argument. The moment one resorts to personal attacks, one has already lost the argument. Personally, I find it offensive that you assume all Atheists are morons. I am an Atheist. What does that mean? It simply means I don't believe in a god. Not yours, not someone else's. None. That's what the word A-theist means. Christians are Monotheists. They believe in one god. Comments like yours, are one of the reasons I don't like those who think their beliefs are better than mine. Remember the 11th commandment: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thy self. Religion and science both strive to do the same thing: explain who we are, where we came from, where we're going and why we're here. The difference is that science doesn't have the arrogance of claiming to already have the answers.
Two things... First: 0 rpm = 0 lbs/ft. Just common sense:) Doesn't matter how much force is applied... lbs/ft need rpm to register a measurement, thus 0 rpm = 0 lbs/ft.
Second: Electric cars are the future. I had the good fortune to be able to go for a test run in a prototype last year (at a now-defunct company called Planet Electric) which went 0-60 in 3 seconds and had a top speed of 120 mph. With the car being topless I was glad I didn't have a hairpiece or I probably would have lost it. Damn. Battery is a lithium-ion battery (short circuiting the battery won't hurt it, plus it lasts longer and takes less time to recharge) which supposedly could last up to 8 hours, although I don't think you could drive full throttle for 8 hours with the 1100 lbs/ft motor they had, but man did that thing move. Of course, being a V8 fanatic, I'd have to hook the thing up to a pc's sound card which would play my favorite V8 sounds in the sound system...
Or PETA vs People Eating Tasty Animals? As far as I know, PETA is a registered trademark, Jerry Falwell is not. But of course, Falwell is a windbag. His head is so far up his ass he even played himself in The People Vs. Larry Flynt, when they re-created the lawsuit Falwell brought agains Flynt Publishing. I mean, how narcisistic can one person get? But, nothing this guy says can (or should) be taken seriously anyway... After all, this is the guy who said 9/11 was God's revenge on the US for its sins, just like Sodom & Gomorra (with nods of agreement from that other fartbrain Pat Robertson).
Well, the problem is a little deeper than that. The problem is mainly unregulated corporations running rampant. If they can get away with something legally, they will, no matter how unethical it is. So, to protect the consumer, laws need to be put in place to keep the corporations in line. Remember what Milton Friedman said: The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Since that's the corporate mantra, this is exactly why we have laws that prohibit certain abuses of power, such as insider trading. Corporate America has demonstrated again and again that it WILL go as far as legally possible to make a buck. You can call Sony HQ as often as you want to, but in the end, they won't care about one guy calling them a hundred times (might even get a restraining order), but they will listen to the might of thousands of people not buying their products... or if that fails, a law forcing them to behave.
If they don't agree, the box says they can return it, even when it's opened. If this is the case, what's to stop us from installing the software, making a backup cd, then returning the original to M$ claiming not to agree with the EULA and demanding our money back?
I'd love to see a test case.
Would someone have to 'prove' they hadn't installed the software? Or is that why more and more software products are 'phoning home' when they're launched? One has to wonder...
Slashdot Mirror
MySQL is not yet an acceptable replacement for a well done installation of Oracle.
Didn't NASA replace their Oracle with MySQL last year?
How the heck would they know the number of years ago that 'x' happened...
Simple: Study archeological finds.
Ever heard of carbon dating? No, it's not a new dating show on Fox. It's the method used to determine the age of archeological finds.
Look here for more info: The OCR Carbon Dating home page
In case you didn't understand what they said there, it basically means they have a constant (the rate of decay during a specific amount of time) which they can apply to a variable (current state of decay) to find out how long it took for the variable to get that way.
Numbers as large as the ones quoted by scientists are never 'absolute facts' nor should they be taken as such. They are simply the closest estimates based on the information they have.
Remember, there are always three sides to every story: what you say, what I say, and then there's the truth.
I say evolution, you say no evolution, but we're probably both wrong. But right now, those are the only two options we have, and to me evolution makes more sense.
But, back to the topic at hand. Personally I don't think any of us will live to see talking animals, but who knows what might happen 500 generations from now?
oh, and it's rIdiculous...
If you're going to pay as much as Dell and its competitors charge for an OEM box, you can afford the additional $100 for the unnecessary Windows license.
OK, so if you can afford a big screen television, you can afford a $30 monthly basic cable bill, even if you don't want or use the service, right?
Did anyone else notice that this thing is basically called OMG? ;)
Perhaps they anticipated our response to this mess...
Funny... but off target.
Lucas OWNS Star Wars, he can replace Luke's speeder with a flying camel if he wants to. It's HIS.
Blockbuster, and that Salt Lake (read: Mormon) video store has NO RIGHT to mutilate movies and then pass them off as the original work. Even if they put a warning sticker on it. Even if the customer asks for it. Video stores are in the business of renting movies to consumers, not editing them to suit their own religious or political beliefs. Only the owner of the copyright has the right to change the contents. End of story.
Since the copyright laws specify you're paying for the CONTENT not the MEDIUM it is stored on, it makes perfect sense to ensure the content you've paid for will remain in your posession even if the storage medium fails for some reason.
You get another bag at the grocery store if the first bag rips on the way out, right? Or would you leave the groceries on the sidewalk? Of course not. You've already paid for them.
Now imagine if the store told you you'd have to pay for the groceries again in order to get a new bag.
Same thing as when a record store asks you to pay full price for a replacement cd.
...and gets tried and aquitted in open court.
We very much need a test case with a judgment in favor of consumer rights.
We need a legal case to which we can point, when we're arguing what our rights really are...
Personally, I've used one of those anti-macrovision boxes (I got mine for $50) and it works great. I didn't create the technology, and I've only used it in the privacy of my own home, excercising my 'fair use' rights as a consumer, so I should probably be safe.
The methodical corporate destruction of consumer rights must be stopped.
The reason why they're going with the old red-ray instead of the new blue-ray is very simple:
Backwards compatibility.
The only way they can entice people to buy a new HD DVD player, is if it can play their old SD DVD's as well.
Now, of course one could conceivably build a player with both red and blue ray lenses, but sticking with red-ray only means manufacturing the players will be cheaper.
Cheaper players means faster implementation in the market place.
Don't forget, it's all about the Benjamins...
Everyone knows that XP will not work without activating it.
Actually... it will work. For 90 days.
What if you're running an FTP server? AT&T as well as many other ISP's have said they'd be willing to sniff packets coming from users who seem to send 'large files' often.
But that's still besides the point.
The point is, nobody, I repeat NOBODY has the right to search your hard drive for illegal content if there's no evidence of illegal content in the first place without searching the drive.
Let's make this simple. Would you feel OK about a liquor manufacturer being legally allowed to search your house without a warrant, without even notifying you, just because you bought a lot of sugar and they want to make sure you're not using it to make moonshine? Why not get a search warrant for anyone who buys blank CD's in packs of 100, as I do regularly? Surely I must be downloading and burning something illegal, right?
This is total BS. Any judge would laugh if a cop asked for a warrant on this weak a basis.
The main thing is that without prior knowledge, or reasonable suspicion of something illegal (which cannot be established on a 'hunch', you must have some form of proof), search and seasure without a warrant is illegal (airports and security posts are different because there you knowingly and willingly go through a security check).
You can't just walk into a house and say "let me see your videos, so I can verify they've all been legally aquired" just because you feel like it. But that's exactly the right those jackasses are asking for. This is beginning to sound way too much like Gestapo tactics... "Papieren, bitte!".
I'm sure if you look close enough, you'll find everybody has something dirty in their laundry. Does that mean you have the right to look? No.
What's to stop the government from getting us to monitor other innocent people, looking for suspicious behaviour? Oh, wait... TIPS, anyone?
You know in advance that your computer will not work.
OK, so it's ok to violate your rights as long as you're told about it first... cool.
Its simple to keep your computer working, don't install a pirated copy of Windows XP.
Who said anything about piracy? I'm just thinking about the average guy who needs to use XP because some application only works on XP and goes out and buys the bloody thing, but still doesn't want Microsoft to maintain a DB outlining his hardware and software buying habits so they can better target advertisement space on msn.com towards him.
It's also unconstitutional under the 'unreasonable search and seizure' clause of the 4th amendment.
It used to be that in order to search your harddrive, the feds or local law enforcement would need a court order, or provide the court with probable cause. Searching illegally first, and then demonstrating probable cause by pointing out what they found, doesn't cut it. Probable cause must be demonstrated before searching of private property is allowed.
But now, we're talking about big corporations getting a free pass from the government to watch over law abiding citizens to make sure they're not breaking the law in their own homes? How about we set up a camera and a microphone in every home to make sure people don't break any laws at home? Hey, it might cut down on domestic violence. The end justifies the means, right?
Where will this end?
Oh, one possible solution: get out in November and vote for the guys running against these pinheads, regardless of party affiliation. Write to your congressman. We need a Consumer Rights lobbying group.
it's called Product Activation.
Without activating the product and thereby 'proving' you have a legal copy, the OS will stop functioning, which is basically a denial of service.
OK, isn't that a little like moving to avoid crap through your mailslot? Or perhaps I should get a P.O.Box and change it regularly? The hell with all my subscriptions.
Methinks it's pretty obvious this judge doesn't even have an email address to begin with. He's never gotten spam, so he can't possibly know wtf he's talking about.
A $25.000 Mac with a CineWave-RT HD card running Final Cut Pro supports uncompressed HD. So does the $200.000 HD Avid similar to the one used to cut SW-EP2. A few other high end editing packages work in uncompressed HD. How else are you gonna do an online HD edit? You may use compressed while you're editing the offline (online=the final master made to conform the offline; offline=where you do the creative part of editing, so lower quality is ok), but you need uncompressed to finalize the master. There's even an uncompressed HD professional system which costs as much as a big house in a good area which does pretty much anything you want in realtime.
Check out ProMax for basic Final Cut Pro based systems that handle uncompressed HD. These systems use Medéa SCSI-3 RAID towers for the hard drive space, which can pump out the necessary 200+ mb/s needed for uncompressed HD (168mb/s for 24p).
I'm working on visual effects for a movie shot on 24p HD right now, and it's being done in uncompressed HD, so I know a tiny bit about this stuff.
I heard somewhere that the VW Beetle was originally not designed with aerodynamics in mind. Remember this was back in the 1930's.
Supposedly, the reason behind it's bubble shape, was to streamline the production. More specifically, the painting process. Instead of spray painting, they dipped. Apparently, they hung the body shells upside down on the assembly line which dipped them into a tank. The shape of the body allowed the paint to drip off the back of the body properly.
Or perhaps it was just the cleaning process before the paint... I'm not sure, but this is what I heard.
Funny how nobody who responds to this is a logged in user...
:)
Having considered the matter, I see where I erred, but that doesn't mean I was completely in error... Let's look at both sides of the issue.
The Torque Wrench is what applies the torque in that analogy (and only does so because you're turning it) and not the bolt it is attached to. It is therefore measuring the resistance to the amount of torque the wrench is applying to the bolt, not how much torque the bolt generates at 0-rpm. If the bolt starts turning with the wrench, the wrench has exceeded the opposing force preventing the rotation of the bolt (the resistance). A force which isn't there in the first place until the wrench starts pulling on it. If you want to find out how tightly a bolt is fastened, you have to watch the wrench to see exactly where the needle is at the exact moment the bolt loosens. At that point, the force the wrench applies to the bolt has exceeded the counterforce (the resistance).
The electro-magnetic force in an electric motor applies to the rotor, but a brake which applies at least an equal amount of opposing force on the rotor prevents it from turning over. So, anything connected to the rotor will not have any torque asserted on it, not even if you were to attach a torque wrench unless you're using the torque wrench as a break. Let's say the force on the rotor is 100Nm, if the brake applies 100Nm in the opposite direction, the total power-output will be 0Nm. Release the break and the rotor will start turning.
My point was, since torque is twisting power, torque cannot be measured without twist. The magnetic force in the motor is not actually torque, it is the magnetic pulling force which gets transformed into torque by the rotation of the rotor, just like the combustion in an internal combustion engine needs to push the piston down to rotate the crankshaft which then generates the twisting power measured at the flywheel as torque.
Now, on the other hand... the magnetic force which rotates the rotor could of course be classified as twisting force, even when the rotor stands still, and as such would still qualify as torque as it is defined. So, in that sense electric motors do in fact have internal torque at 0-rpm, but only if it is being held at 0-rpm by a brake. If there's no current passing through it, the magnetic force isn't created in the first place so there is no torque, and no rotation.
So, bottom line: The magnetic power in a 'braked' electric motor can be classified as torque. The 'torque wrench' argument, has nothing to do with the issue. Neither does "learn some physics".
And my favorite argument: If electric motors couldn't apply torque at zero rpm then all of those toy radio controled cars would need a clutch!!!
Well.. Electric toy cars don't need clutches simply because no power is being passed to the motor until you press go. Just like an electric drill doesn't produce any torque until you pull the trigger. In fact, that argument was a contradiction in terms. The toy cars would absolutely need clutches (or brakes) if the motors generated torque at 0-rpm, now THAT is common sense.
Even though it was wrong of me to generalize that way about electric motors (and was affected by my brain being stuck in 'internal combustion engine' mode), none of the arguments posted even tried to further the opposing argument. All the logic applied was in fact the opposite of what actually happens in a motor, mechanical or electric. I still see their point, even if they didnt see mine. Funny.
Anyway. I was wrong... but that doesn't mean you were entirely right. There are three sides to every argument. What I say, what you say, and then there's the truth.
In any case... I consider this argument finished, and has in fact slid a bit off-topic, so this will be the last post from me on this matter.
Heck, 1TB barely anything today... I have 460 GB in my main PC. 40+40+60+120+100+100.
1 TB can just barely hold a full length feature film in High Definition 24p (1920x1080 24fps is 7MB/frame ; 168MB/sec ; 10GB/min, so 90 mins = 900GB).
So.. I'll be happy when I can get a TB device or even a PB or beyond. The bigger the better!
100Ghz? Bring it on! 100GB RAM? Where do I sign up?
Of course... I'm a gadget junkie... so I'm not really the best example, but still.
By carping about this, all you guys are doing is proving my point for me.
The point being: nobody knows anything about the origins of the universe; everything is speculation at best. Scientists have never said "this is the way it is, and if you don't accept it, we will round you up and kill you." like many religious zealots have.
Bottom line: religion pretends to have an explanation for everything, science doesn't have the explanations for everything (and probably never will simply because of the vastness of the universe) but at least they're looking for the answer rather than saying "this is it, let's stop looking!"
Typical Atheist.
You sir, are an ignorant fucking moron.
Typical answer of someone who just lost an argument. The moment one resorts to personal attacks, one has already lost the argument.
Personally, I find it offensive that you assume all Atheists are morons.
I am an Atheist. What does that mean? It simply means I don't believe in a god. Not yours, not someone else's. None. That's what the word A-theist means. Christians are Monotheists. They believe in one god. Comments like yours, are one of the reasons I don't like those who think their beliefs are better than mine.
Remember the 11th commandment: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thy self.
Religion and science both strive to do the same thing: explain who we are, where we came from, where we're going and why we're here. The difference is that science doesn't have the arrogance of claiming to already have the answers.
No matter what... this is still off-topic.
Two things... :)
First: 0 rpm = 0 lbs/ft. Just common sense
Doesn't matter how much force is applied... lbs/ft need rpm to register a measurement, thus 0 rpm = 0 lbs/ft.
Second: Electric cars are the future. I had the good fortune to be able to go for a test run in a prototype last year (at a now-defunct company called Planet Electric) which went 0-60 in 3 seconds and had a top speed of 120 mph. With the car being topless I was glad I didn't have a hairpiece or I probably would have lost it. Damn.
Battery is a lithium-ion battery (short circuiting the battery won't hurt it, plus it lasts longer and takes less time to recharge) which supposedly could last up to 8 hours, although I don't think you could drive full throttle for 8 hours with the 1100 lbs/ft motor they had, but man did that thing move. Of course, being a V8 fanatic, I'd have to hook the thing up to a pc's sound card which would play my favorite V8 sounds in the sound system...
Or PETA vs People Eating Tasty Animals?
As far as I know, PETA is a registered trademark, Jerry Falwell is not.
But of course, Falwell is a windbag. His head is so far up his ass he even played himself in The People Vs. Larry Flynt, when they re-created the lawsuit Falwell brought agains Flynt Publishing. I mean, how narcisistic can one person get?
But, nothing this guy says can (or should) be taken seriously anyway... After all, this is the guy who said 9/11 was God's revenge on the US for its sins, just like Sodom & Gomorra (with nods of agreement from that other fartbrain Pat Robertson).
Well, the problem is a little deeper than that. The problem is mainly unregulated corporations running rampant. If they can get away with something legally, they will, no matter how unethical it is.
So, to protect the consumer, laws need to be put in place to keep the corporations in line.
Remember what Milton Friedman said: The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Since that's the corporate mantra, this is exactly why we have laws that prohibit certain abuses of power, such as insider trading. Corporate America has demonstrated again and again that it WILL go as far as legally possible to make a buck.
You can call Sony HQ as often as you want to, but in the end, they won't care about one guy calling them a hundred times (might even get a restraining order), but they will listen to the might of thousands of people not buying their products... or if that fails, a law forcing them to behave.
If they don't agree, the box says they can return it, even when it's opened.
If this is the case, what's to stop us from installing the software, making a backup cd, then returning the original to M$ claiming not to agree with the EULA and demanding our money back?
I'd love to see a test case.
Would someone have to 'prove' they hadn't installed the software?
Or is that why more and more software products are 'phoning home' when they're launched? One has to wonder...
Which link was that? All three links seem valid to me. Don't know what you look like, but normally a penguin doesn't look anything like a naked man.