Anyone who looks carefully at the specs of the station realizes that it's not useful for anything. It can't act as a staging point )wrong orbit), it can't service satellites (not high enough), it doesn't offer any astronomical observation abilities over dedicated satellites like Hubble, its internal capacity is not that much greater than the Space Shuttle, and any ground observations are being done better by the Space Shuttle and dedicated sats. Basically, the ISS sits up there and shows the flag. (Or flags, as the case may be.) The capacity problems have to do with the fact that it hasn't been upgraded as planned, and it certainly is better suited than the Space Shuttle for anything that takes more than a week.
So Apple is forcing others not to bring out regular industry standard mp4? Or isn't it rather the music industry that's forcing them? Can't you understand that? You are barking up the wrong tree, and I guess that's not by mistake.
You sir, are a fucking idiot.
There's plenty of other mp4 players out there. It's the fact that Apple create's an artificial barrier (just like the telco companies) to interoprating with those other mp4 players.
What do you not understand here? What do you pretend to not understand here? I already showed you that Apple doesn't keep anybody from selling non-DRMed mp4s, that's the music industry. The fact that you keep diverting from that fact shows who you are shilling for. Apple also only "prevents" playing of iTS music on other players the same way sellers of CDs prevent you from playing the music on tape decks or the exact same players.
So, its an artificial barrier to implementation. Duh, what would be natural about anything talked about here? Are portable music players not artificial? Is music not artificial? Is Capitalism not artificial?
Ohh, you mean like playing CDs on a tape deck - that kind of easy.
What part of artificial do you not understand?
The difference between a CD & a tape deck is a technological one.
The difference between a DRM infested mp4 from itunes and a regular industry standard mp4, is that Apple has created an artificial barrier to playing their mp4 on other hardware.
Do you get it now? Apple and the cell phone companies use artificial locks on their products to prevent consumers moving to competitors. So Apple is forcing others not to bring out regular industry standard mp4? Or isn't it rather the music industry that's forcing them? Can't you understand that? You are barking up the wrong tree, and I guess that's not by mistake.
Parallel Execution
While it is easy to think of the per-pixel operations that an Image Unit performs as happening one-by-one in a linear fashion, Core Image executes these operations, whenever possible, using either the Velocity Engine in the PowerPC G4 or G5 CPUs or the high performance GPUs on the latest video cards. These SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) hardware solutions allow the same code to be executed on multiple data sets in parallel.
This use of parallelism is a perfect match for manipulating images where the same operation is performed over and over on hundreds or thousands of pixels.
Are you trying to tell me that the stuff in the movies isn't real? King Kong didn't really climb the Empire State Building and Captain Jack Sparrow didn't really fight with guys with squid-heads?
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't really a robot. Don't worry, he really is.
Errrrr right. You do understand that other vendor's can't implement fairplay don't you? So?
It's an artificial barrier to something that should be easy. IE. If you buy music from one source, you should be able to play it everywhere.
That should be easy what?
I realise that English is not your native language, so you have a little difficulty following sometimes.
By "A technological barrier to something that should be easy," I was saying that Apple has an artificial barrier to something that should be easy to do. Ohh, you mean like playing CDs on a tape deck - that kind of easy.
Lock out of what exactly? Out of selling music online? Out of making a Mobile Music Player?
Lock out of interoperating with their music. In what way exactly? Can other vendors not interoperate with "Apple music" via Quicktime? What do vendors are you talking about anyway?
The analogy was with the cell phone market don't forget. Apple's artificial limitation's on where you can play ITMS mp4s is similar to the cell phone company's artificial phone locks.
A technological barrier to something that should be easy. That should be easy what?
So... Microsoft Word isn't an attempt at vendor lockin through a proprietary format because anybody can buy/create a different word processor?
Other companies can't start music stores easily because they don't have a DRM scheme that's acceptable to music companies and can also play on devices. Sure they have, it's called PlaysForSure and isn't just limited to one player.
If Apple were to license their DRM scheme then another company could make a music store that could sell DRM to music iPod (and the music corps require DRM), or they could make a music player that plays iTMS music. Yeah, so? If Microsoft had made PlayForSure available for Macs, Apple wouldn't have to make their own DRM system. And now you want to penalize them for being more successful than Microsoft? Mr. Gates, is that the best you can do?
If you're fine with companies milking proprietary formats, fine, but cut the "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies" BS. It just makes you look dumb. Could you show me where I said anything like "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies"? No? Thought so.
So why don't you just say what you mean instead of burning strawmen? Too stupid? Or don't they teach you anything more sophisticated at the School for Microsoft Shills?
Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).
Music companies only give rights to music stores that use DRM, Apple has the most popular player that supports playing DRM, but the DRM is proprietary. You get it now? So Apple is locking out others out of not offering an online music store? Or not offering an iPod? Or being better than Apple?
...if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card, and APPLE would provide simple, regional, downloadable settings (for carrier-based web proxies, etc.) And what your iPhone can actually do then is up to the provider you use.
I didn't say Apple should license fairplay, I implied that Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies). Lock out of what exactly? Out of selling music online? Out of making a Mobile Music Player?
You'ld have to know about them. That would be FEMA's job by the way.
It's not FEMA's job to replace a functioning local government. FEMA's job is (ignoring the reorg that stripped them technically of most power and responsibility) is to organize the overall effort, coordinate logistics (especially from the rest of the country and especially after the fact), and divy out federal money after the fact to the victims of the disaster. Again, New Orleans government knew that a lot of its citizens couldn't get out of town, it knew where the busses were, but it didn't do anything to help those people.
And to organize between independent local entities. And how do you know the New Orleans government knew where buses where it did have no control over?
And yes, what's mysterious about flying people in. Into a city where a Category 5 Hurricane is coming in?
And then you would have to have buses - and no, those school buses were from the Orleans Parish School Board, not from the City of New Orleans.
So that means you have to call someone first? Ok. Worst that happens is you invoke eminent domain and drive them off the lot.
You'ld have to know about them. That would be FEMA's job by the way.
Not to mention that all you proposals would have taken time. As in "too late".
That's why you grease the channels ahead of time. And declare evacuations well ahead of time. Even so, I think they had enough time to grab those school busses. Sure, FEMA had it.
Get more bus drivers. Anyone with a commercial truck driving license probably can figure out a bus on the road. And you can always fly or drive in volunteers from elsewhere. New Orleans didn't even try. You're watching too many disaster movies, where you constantly have people volunteering. And drive or fly them in? When many thousands are pouring out to leave, jamming every street and not sticking to the outward lanes? Why don't you propose they put a thumb in the levee to prevent the flooding?
And then you would have to have buses - and no, those school buses were from the Orleans Parish School Board, not from the City of New Orleans.
Not to mention that all you proposals would have taken time. As in "too late".
Come back when you've got scientific consensus on your side.
Scientific consensus once supported the phlogiston theory. All it took to bring it down was Lavoisier. The scientific consensus once supported the "humans don't have influence on climate" theory. All it took to bring it down was Arrhenius. That was over 100 years ago, Mr. Phlogiston.
Why should we pay attention to anything you say when you are too developmentally challenged to understand the difference between weather and climate?
Climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. Weather is of climate.
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the building blocks, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? So my point stands.
But why bother answering the point when you can just toss out an ad-hoc attack instead?
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling atoms on the quantum level, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? Doing anything with stuff made out of atoms is unpossible.
The thing is, if human CO2 emissions are only.05 degrees of difference, whereas 1.1 is solar activity change and.05 is volcanic, limiting our CO2 emissions aren't going to do jack squat in comparison to natural sources of increased temperature. Sure. IF my grandma had wheels...
Well, when ice is increasing in the southern oceans and the global temperature record shows no increase in temperature since 1999, it tends to make a few people skeptical. But I understand if you have an agenda you need fulfilled to declare that global warming has been definitively "proven." Translation: "The global temperature record shows no increase in temperature since 1999" means that using the data-set HadCRUT3 from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological (ploted in this graph, 1998 was the warmest year in the last >150 years. The fact that the years 1999-2006 where the 2nd through 7th, 9th and 11th warmest years in the last >150 years (with 8th being 1997 and 10th 1995) just means that the world is actually getting colder.
// "Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously".//
I like how its a red herring now. Yet it was the "consensus" of its age and I am quite sure naysayers will equally villified as they are today. Nearly all the dire predictions for it were similar to the "global warming" today, yet none came to pass. Prove it. And not by citing one of the blogs with the muscle man adds.
Maybe, just maybe, you could also actually read the article you cited, and realize that it actually weakens a common argument against Global Warming. But that may be asking just too much.
Slashdot Mirror
The capacity problems have to do with the fact that it hasn't been upgraded as planned, and it certainly is better suited than the Space Shuttle for anything that takes more than a week.
You sir, are a fucking idiot.
There's plenty of other mp4 players out there. It's the fact that Apple create's an artificial barrier (just like the telco companies) to interoprating with those other mp4 players.
What do you not understand here? What do you pretend to not understand here? I already showed you that Apple doesn't keep anybody from selling non-DRMed mp4s, that's the music industry. The fact that you keep diverting from that fact shows who you are shilling for. Apple also only "prevents" playing of iTS music on other players the same way sellers of CDs prevent you from playing the music on tape decks or the exact same players.
So, its an artificial barrier to implementation.
Duh, what would be natural about anything talked about here? Are portable music players not artificial? Is music not artificial? Is Capitalism not artificial? Ohh, you mean like playing CDs on a tape deck - that kind of easy.
What part of artificial do you not understand?
The difference between a CD & a tape deck is a technological one.
The difference between a DRM infested mp4 from itunes and a regular industry standard mp4, is that Apple has created an artificial barrier to playing their mp4 on other hardware.
Do you get it now? Apple and the cell phone companies use artificial locks on their products to prevent consumers moving to competitors. So Apple is forcing others not to bring out regular industry standard mp4? Or isn't it rather the music industry that's forcing them? Can't you understand that? You are barking up the wrong tree, and I guess that's not by mistake.
This is more like making a "live recording" of somebody doing Karaoke of a song and then selling it pretending it's Joe Schmoe doing "My Way".
Or infact simply pirating a CD and slapping your wife's name on it.
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/coreimage.html
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't really a robot. Don't worry, he really is.
Errrrr right. You do understand that other vendor's can't implement fairplay don't you?
So? It's an artificial barrier to something that should be easy. IE. If you buy music from one source, you should be able to play it everywhere.
That should be easy what?
I realise that English is not your native language, so you have a little difficulty following sometimes.
By "A technological barrier to something that should be easy," I was saying that Apple has an artificial barrier to something that should be easy to do. Ohh, you mean like playing CDs on a tape deck - that kind of easy.
Lock out of interoperating with their music. In what way exactly? Can other vendors not interoperate with "Apple music" via Quicktime? What do vendors are you talking about anyway? The analogy was with the cell phone market don't forget. Apple's artificial limitation's on where you can play ITMS mp4s is similar to the cell phone company's artificial phone locks.
A technological barrier to something that should be easy. That should be easy what?
Other companies can't start music stores easily because they don't have a DRM scheme that's acceptable to music companies and can also play on devices. Sure they have, it's called PlaysForSure and isn't just limited to one player. If Apple were to license their DRM scheme then another company could make a music store that could sell DRM to music iPod (and the music corps require DRM), or they could make a music player that plays iTMS music. Yeah, so? If Microsoft had made PlayForSure available for Macs, Apple wouldn't have to make their own DRM system. And now you want to penalize them for being more successful than Microsoft? Mr. Gates, is that the best you can do? If you're fine with companies milking proprietary formats, fine, but cut the "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies" BS. It just makes you look dumb. Could you show me where I said anything like "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies"? No? Thought so.
So why don't you just say what you mean instead of burning strawmen? Too stupid? Or don't they teach you anything more sophisticated at the School for Microsoft Shills?
Music companies only give rights to music stores that use DRM, Apple has the most popular player that supports playing DRM, but the DRM is proprietary. You get it now? So Apple is locking out others out of not offering an online music store? Or not offering an iPod? Or being better than Apple?
...if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card, and APPLE would provide simple, regional, downloadable settings (for carrier-based web proxies, etc.)And what your iPhone can actually do then is up to the provider you use.
I didn't say Apple should license fairplay, I implied that Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).
Lock out of what exactly? Out of selling music online? Out of making a Mobile Music Player?
You'ld have to know about them. That would be FEMA's job by the way.
It's not FEMA's job to replace a functioning local government. FEMA's job is (ignoring the reorg that stripped them technically of most power and responsibility) is to organize the overall effort, coordinate logistics (especially from the rest of the country and especially after the fact), and divy out federal money after the fact to the victims of the disaster. Again, New Orleans government knew that a lot of its citizens couldn't get out of town, it knew where the busses were, but it didn't do anything to help those people.
And to organize between independent local entities. And how do you know the New Orleans government knew where buses where it did have no control over?And then you would have to have buses - and no, those school buses were from the Orleans Parish School Board, not from the City of New Orleans.
So that means you have to call someone first? Ok. Worst that happens is you invoke eminent domain and drive them off the lot.
You'ld have to know about them. That would be FEMA's job by the way.Not to mention that all you proposals would have taken time. As in "too late".
That's why you grease the channels ahead of time. And declare evacuations well ahead of time. Even so, I think they had enough time to grab those school busses. Sure, FEMA had it.And then you would have to have buses - and no, those school buses were from the Orleans Parish School Board, not from the City of New Orleans.
Not to mention that all you proposals would have taken time. As in "too late".
Climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. Weather is of climate.
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the building blocks, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? So my point stands.
But why bother answering the point when you can just toss out an ad-hoc attack instead?
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling atoms on the quantum level, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? Doing anything with stuff made out of atoms is unpossible.http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-ag
or cliamte change on Jupiter?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-0
Minor variations in solar radiation that make funny little bumps on the ever climbing temperature curve. We've been through this already. Grow up.
It's hard to evacuate with busses, when many of the bus drivers have already evacuated themselves with their cars.
// "Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously".I like how its a red herring now. Yet it was the "consensus" of its age and I am quite sure naysayers will equally villified as they are today. Nearly all the dire predictions for it were similar to the "global warming" today, yet none came to pass. Prove it. And not by citing one of the blogs with the muscle man adds.
Maybe, just maybe, you could also actually read the article you cited, and realize that it actually weakens a common argument against Global Warming. But that may be asking just too much.