You do realize that a CD with 15 tracks, at $1.29 a track is going to end up costing you almost $20. That means that some CDs will cost almost TWICE that of their CD counterpart if bought off Amazon. For new CDs that debut at the $15-$20 price point I guess that's fine, but otherwise what a freaking rip off.
They won't be. When the Razr first came out it was $499 ($799 w/o a contract). 18 months later they were going for...FREE with a contract. All the iPhone has to do is sell as well as the Razr and it can be just as big a success and recieve the same subsidy.
With the power of the new AT&T, the iPhone can easily replace the iPod. I won't be surprised in the least if a year after it's released, the iPhone is so subsidized by AT&T that it's $249 with a 2yr contract. Hell, they could sell them for $99 a pop, but I don't think Apple would *let them* because it _would_ hurt iPod sales.
I don't know what Apple's long-term agenda is, but with AT&T as a partner they can completely phase the iPod out and replace it with highly subsidized iPhones. Apple get to keep their profits and AT&T gets to keep your soul.
The iPhone will rape us all, whether we like it or not. Bend over, the iPhone is coming.
Game still has a lot of problems and bugs. A lot. Needs about another 6-8 months of development to really work things out, but MMORPG gamers are used to paying to beta test games. Moreover, SOE is co=publishing, and they want their damn money.
You might want to read those Wiki's before you post them. They don't exactly help you make a convincing argument...at all. In fact, they work more against you than for you.
I don't think it was every common sense that smoking was good for you. It was common sense that it was bad for you, but people did it anyway because no one explicitly came out and said, "Hey, this is bad for you, don't do it." Instead they just said, "Health effects...what? Hey look how cool this is."
The problem with using common sense is that it doens't make good for a lawsuit. Today people need to be told that coffee is hot, inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs, guns are not toys, and putting a transmitter next to your head and hitting transmit for hours every day all year long might be bad for you.
One shouldn't have expected this study to show anything. In fact, if it found anything at all that would have been absolutely horrifying, given that, as I said before, it's really only looking at 10 years of data. It usually takes longer than that to see the effects of smoking.
No doubt. In fact, it may be so small that it makes no difference at all. But 20 years is not nearly enough time to come to a conclusion of any value, considering that the first 10 years of data is with such low usage it's worthless. 10 years ago cell phone usage wasn't nearly as high as it is today. Probably half, if not less. 15 years ago it was too expensive for most people to even consider, let alone use on a daily basis.
Some studies like EM radiation to things like leukimia(sp?), in children anyway.
Well, we'll all find out in 30 years now won't we? I won't be surprised, but I guess you will be.
And you can find studies on the other side that say there is a link.
I would think that by now it would be common sense that something like a cell phone can't possibly be good for your brain.
Actually, if all usage patterns were the same, I wouldn't expect the % of lung cancer to be detected at all by regression...not from only five years of smoking. Cancer can develop over long stretches of time from prolonged exposure to radiation and carcinogens.
I kind of thought it was common sense that radiation is harmful. I didn't think we still needed studies to prove this.
This "study" tells us nothing. 21 years? How many people even had a cell phone 21 years ago? Of those people, how many of them talked on said phone for two hours a day, every day, for 21 years?
Today you've got people talking on the phone for hours a day, every day. How about we study them, and then see if they don't have a higher rate of inoperable brain tumors in 30-40 years time.
You know, I can smoke one cigarette a week for 15 years, then a pack a week for the remaining 5 years and probably not get lung cancer and the end of that 20 year time period. That doesn't exactly mean that smoking isn't harmful.
Putting a device that emits radiation next to your head is harmful. How much? Who knows. Maybe in 30 years we'll find out.
They weren't exactly sure what would happen when they set off the first atom bomb either.
Honestly, I hope everyone's wrong and some kind of crazy black hole forms. Yeah, we'd all die...but what a way for a civilization to end! I mean, we gotta' at least out do the dinosaurs.
The old "security through obscurity" argument doesn't really hold water. There were less Mac users back in the OS 9 days, and yet there was plenty of viruses and malware for the platform. As the Windows userbase increased in absolute numbers, so did the amount of malware. However, once Apple released OS X the level of malware essentially dropped to zero and that's where it's been ever since, despite the fact that the Mac userbase is much larger today, in absolute terms, than it was in the OS 9 days. There must be something inherently more secure about OS X and its BSD-base.
Futhremore, one would think that hacking OS X and BSD would be a higher priority than hacking Windows, since people who have sensetive data that they want to secure are less likely to use Windows. The expected value of the payoff for hacking OS X and BSD is going to be a lot higher than it is for Windows. Robbing a bank in the ghetto with a vault made of plywood might be easier, but it's not going to have much money in it. I guess if you rob enough of those banks you can make up for it, but still.
Walk into any school computer lab with LCDs and put in a Ubuntu disk. You'll notice when the GUI starts to load that you can see the Start Menu faintly though the maroon colored wallpaper.
Hell, top menu bar on my 6-month old iMac has burned in.
It's not NEARLY as bad on LCDs as it is on most plasmas, but it's still there on almost every single LCD.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that a CD with 15 tracks, at $1.29 a track is going to end up costing you almost $20. That means that some CDs will cost almost TWICE that of their CD counterpart if bought off Amazon. For new CDs that debut at the $15-$20 price point I guess that's fine, but otherwise what a freaking rip off.
They won't be. When the Razr first came out it was $499 ($799 w/o a contract). 18 months later they were going for...FREE with a contract. All the iPhone has to do is sell as well as the Razr and it can be just as big a success and recieve the same subsidy.
With the power of the new AT&T, the iPhone can easily replace the iPod. I won't be surprised in the least if a year after it's released, the iPhone is so subsidized by AT&T that it's $249 with a 2yr contract. Hell, they could sell them for $99 a pop, but I don't think Apple would *let them* because it _would_ hurt iPod sales.
I don't know what Apple's long-term agenda is, but with AT&T as a partner they can completely phase the iPod out and replace it with highly subsidized iPhones. Apple get to keep their profits and AT&T gets to keep your soul.
The iPhone will rape us all, whether we like it or not. Bend over, the iPhone is coming.
Game still has a lot of problems and bugs. A lot. Needs about another 6-8 months of development to really work things out, but MMORPG gamers are used to paying to beta test games. Moreover, SOE is co=publishing, and they want their damn money.
You can have my long-range .50 anti-material sniper rifle when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Inconceivable!
You might want to read those Wiki's before you post them. They don't exactly help you make a convincing argument...at all. In fact, they work more against you than for you.
I don't think it was every common sense that smoking was good for you. It was common sense that it was bad for you, but people did it anyway because no one explicitly came out and said, "Hey, this is bad for you, don't do it." Instead they just said, "Health effects...what? Hey look how cool this is."
The problem with using common sense is that it doens't make good for a lawsuit. Today people need to be told that coffee is hot, inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs, guns are not toys, and putting a transmitter next to your head and hitting transmit for hours every day all year long might be bad for you.
Yeah, but radios are receiving, not transmitting. Not transmitting 2 inches away from your brain. Great quote BTW.
One shouldn't have expected this study to show anything. In fact, if it found anything at all that would have been absolutely horrifying, given that, as I said before, it's really only looking at 10 years of data. It usually takes longer than that to see the effects of smoking.
No doubt. In fact, it may be so small that it makes no difference at all. But 20 years is not nearly enough time to come to a conclusion of any value, considering that the first 10 years of data is with such low usage it's worthless. 10 years ago cell phone usage wasn't nearly as high as it is today. Probably half, if not less. 15 years ago it was too expensive for most people to even consider, let alone use on a daily basis.
Some studies like EM radiation to things like leukimia(sp?), in children anyway. Well, we'll all find out in 30 years now won't we? I won't be surprised, but I guess you will be.
And you can find studies on the other side that say there is a link. I would think that by now it would be common sense that something like a cell phone can't possibly be good for your brain.
Actually, if all usage patterns were the same, I wouldn't expect the % of lung cancer to be detected at all by regression...not from only five years of smoking. Cancer can develop over long stretches of time from prolonged exposure to radiation and carcinogens.
I kind of thought it was common sense that radiation is harmful. I didn't think we still needed studies to prove this.
This "study" tells us nothing. 21 years? How many people even had a cell phone 21 years ago? Of those people, how many of them talked on said phone for two hours a day, every day, for 21 years?
Today you've got people talking on the phone for hours a day, every day. How about we study them, and then see if they don't have a higher rate of inoperable brain tumors in 30-40 years time.
You know, I can smoke one cigarette a week for 15 years, then a pack a week for the remaining 5 years and probably not get lung cancer and the end of that 20 year time period. That doesn't exactly mean that smoking isn't harmful.
Putting a device that emits radiation next to your head is harmful. How much? Who knows. Maybe in 30 years we'll find out.
You mean superior, like the Jews?
Set phasers to stun.
They weren't exactly sure what would happen when they set off the first atom bomb either.
Honestly, I hope everyone's wrong and some kind of crazy black hole forms. Yeah, we'd all die...but what a way for a civilization to end! I mean, we gotta' at least out do the dinosaurs.
So MacOS 9 was less secure because it was old, and BSD is more secure because it's old. Good game.
The old "security through obscurity" argument doesn't really hold water. There were less Mac users back in the OS 9 days, and yet there was plenty of viruses and malware for the platform. As the Windows userbase increased in absolute numbers, so did the amount of malware. However, once Apple released OS X the level of malware essentially dropped to zero and that's where it's been ever since, despite the fact that the Mac userbase is much larger today, in absolute terms, than it was in the OS 9 days. There must be something inherently more secure about OS X and its BSD-base.
Futhremore, one would think that hacking OS X and BSD would be a higher priority than hacking Windows, since people who have sensetive data that they want to secure are less likely to use Windows. The expected value of the payoff for hacking OS X and BSD is going to be a lot higher than it is for Windows. Robbing a bank in the ghetto with a vault made of plywood might be easier, but it's not going to have much money in it. I guess if you rob enough of those banks you can make up for it, but still.
They need to get the guy who came up with the phrase "Cyber Monday" to rename our wireless telecommunications system.
Coins these phrases?
And how the hell do you coin a phrase?!?!
Really? Neat. I'll have to look into that. I usually just throw the disk in, then hit restart.
Walk into any school computer lab with LCDs and put in a Ubuntu disk. You'll notice when the GUI starts to load that you can see the Start Menu faintly though the maroon colored wallpaper.
Hell, top menu bar on my 6-month old iMac has burned in.
It's not NEARLY as bad on LCDs as it is on most plasmas, but it's still there on almost every single LCD.
LCDs also burn in.