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.
Lesser Evets
Apr 28, 07:27 AM
188% growth... that's impressive.
iliketyla
Apr 21, 07:35 PM
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
....yeah the anti-virus software that I don't use.
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
....yeah the anti-virus software that I don't use.
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:14 AM
The lazy assertation is of your own making. I was expressing my desire for a future purchase of an NGP. Nothing more. If that is upsetting you, too bad. If you bothred to read, you would have noticed I said that earlier. Your "revalation" is nothing more than a "lazy assertation".
What's an assertation?
What's an assertation?
mahonmeister
Sep 26, 02:20 AM
You can buy a 32 core machine today. Sun sells them. They are not cheap. I'm waiting for the day when we see "kilo-cores" and people add them like RAM, a thousand cores at a time.
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 07:39 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
CoryTV
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
and you can use Magic bullet or whoever wants to make a grading app inside of FCPX.
I can't even believe I was arguing with someone who things that magic bullet and Color are even remotely the same thing.
Goodnight, junior.
I can't even believe I was arguing with someone who things that magic bullet and Color are even remotely the same thing.
Goodnight, junior.
technicolor
Sep 21, 05:52 AM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:21 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
That's a pricey chip. You're not going to see killer single thread performance but multitasking would be insane.
TennisandMusic
Apr 21, 02:46 PM
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that is? The *NIX family? Or something else? I'd like to hear your perspective.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that is? The *NIX family? Or something else? I'd like to hear your perspective.
Cromulent
Apr 24, 10:13 AM
No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:06 AM
Because it isn't cool to support fat kids that are being bullied, just if you live an alternative lifestyle. That's the American way, pick out a tiny sect of society and lift it up on a mantle to bitch about while ignoring the bigger issue.
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
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.
frogger2020
Apr 5, 11:02 PM
The thing that bugs me the most is that Windows Explorer is so much better than Finder.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
I see no reason why Apple won't have a low cost tablet when competitors drop their prices. They are already very aggressive on pricing, and I think we see in the iPod market their approach to pricing these sorts of devices: You can step up from $49 (in the U.S.) all the way to an iPod touch. Hard to beat Apple on pricing, and this is ten years after the iPod was introduced.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
iJohnHenry
Mar 12, 11:17 AM
Closed-mouthed officials, and open-mouthed media.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
mahonmeister
Sep 26, 02:20 AM
You can buy a 32 core machine today. Sun sells them. They are not cheap. I'm waiting for the day when we see "kilo-cores" and people add them like RAM, a thousand cores at a time.
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
appleguy123
Apr 24, 09:47 AM
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
LagunaSol
Apr 9, 09:24 PM
Real StarCraft for iPad, Blizzard. Make it happen.
dgree03
Apr 21, 09:07 AM
Look Android lovers... this is an Apple site. You don't need to call us "Fanboys" in a condescending way here. We are here because we love our Macs, iOS devices or we develop for them and like to keep up on the news. Yes... many here are "fanboys".
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
I generally agree with your post. My problem is, people comment on stuff they have NO IDEA about on this site. When anybody makes false claims, they should be called out, period. My annoyance is with "fanboys" as they seem incapable of thinking that "their" product my not be the best or the only fish in the pond.
I will defend apple on many things, I will defend android on many things, I will defend windows on many things, I will defend sony, samsung, monster(beats headphones), protools, BMWS, Dodges etc....
I wish more people here can be objective about most things, so we can have a real discussion and like you said NOT "a pissing contest." But sometimes a pissing contest is needed to shut people down who are spreading falsehoods.
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
I generally agree with your post. My problem is, people comment on stuff they have NO IDEA about on this site. When anybody makes false claims, they should be called out, period. My annoyance is with "fanboys" as they seem incapable of thinking that "their" product my not be the best or the only fish in the pond.
I will defend apple on many things, I will defend android on many things, I will defend windows on many things, I will defend sony, samsung, monster(beats headphones), protools, BMWS, Dodges etc....
I wish more people here can be objective about most things, so we can have a real discussion and like you said NOT "a pissing contest." But sometimes a pissing contest is needed to shut people down who are spreading falsehoods.
skunk
Apr 24, 10:50 AM
I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.What do you mean by "allowed for"? Do you mean that they could have slaughtered more people in the wars of religion? As for Islam, we probably would not have had a Renaissance without Islam.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:12 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
entatlrg
Mar 13, 01:58 PM
It's hard to be a fan of anything on this planet that is capable of destroying the planet.
Natural disaster, terrorism, sabotage, war, human error are all very real risks to nuclear power. Plus, disposing of, rather storing it's waste is just postponing problems...
Therefore nuclear energy is not a good idea, (imo).
Yes, other methods cost more, cause pollution or aren't as efficient, (in their current state) ...
How do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....
Natural disaster, terrorism, sabotage, war, human error are all very real risks to nuclear power. Plus, disposing of, rather storing it's waste is just postponing problems...
Therefore nuclear energy is not a good idea, (imo).
Yes, other methods cost more, cause pollution or aren't as efficient, (in their current state) ...
How do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....