MadGoat
Oct 7, 11:04 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
in laden cia Bin Laden. from
in Laden#39;s compound as
didnt Bin+laden+was+a+cia+
killed Osama in Laden,
CIA says release of Osama in
Nigganov , technique in laden
Bin+laden+was+a+cia+
in laden Gaddafi younger. quot
CIA Fakes Bin Laden Tapes.
was in laden a cia
down Osama in Laden in
Osama in Laden in the
Kill Osama in Laden. The CIA
killed Osama in Laden was
Bin+laden+was+a+cia+
in Laden. C-I-A Director
even height usama in ladenmet
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:42 AM
"But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). "
That was his original comment.
Ah, my mistake.
Al's misread the table and I've misread Al's comments. :o
That was his original comment.
Ah, my mistake.
Al's misread the table and I've misread Al's comments. :o
blindzero
May 5, 05:49 PM
I'm just outside of DC and don't have any issues with dropped calls or missed voicemails.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:33 PM
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
You disagree? When I studied anthropology I learned that it is thought that is why religion began. Do you have other information?
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
You disagree? When I studied anthropology I learned that it is thought that is why religion began. Do you have other information?
Shivetya
Apr 28, 12:29 PM
Its not like the market for $1000+ computers is inexhaustible. They had to throw in tablets while they can to maintain market position because once the cheap tablets start coming out (and they will, it took a while for notebooks to get cheap and look at where they are now).
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 12:34 PM
I am not surprised by this at all.
There are cracks appearing in the iPhones armor very quickly.
1. It is suck on one network and will not take a chance to go with Verizon.
2. Only one manufactor is going to sting. Android is announced already on 4 different companies phones (Motoral, HTC, Samsung,and Nokia) I have heard rumors of Sony being added to that list as well.
3. Apple very poor and single point app approval process is starting to a lot of problems. When Jail Break stores are kicking off it clearly people want more choices. Hell people Jail break just to get certain apps that apple will not approve or take to long to approve. Compared to google system where the app store is just one of many locations to buy apps.
4. The very limited customization of iPhones OS is very limiting.
I think point 3 is the biggest problem with the iPhone OS and will be what in the long run what will let others over take it.
There are cracks appearing in the iPhones armor very quickly.
1. It is suck on one network and will not take a chance to go with Verizon.
2. Only one manufactor is going to sting. Android is announced already on 4 different companies phones (Motoral, HTC, Samsung,and Nokia) I have heard rumors of Sony being added to that list as well.
3. Apple very poor and single point app approval process is starting to a lot of problems. When Jail Break stores are kicking off it clearly people want more choices. Hell people Jail break just to get certain apps that apple will not approve or take to long to approve. Compared to google system where the app store is just one of many locations to buy apps.
4. The very limited customization of iPhones OS is very limiting.
I think point 3 is the biggest problem with the iPhone OS and will be what in the long run what will let others over take it.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 10:41 AM
OS X being 25 years old (actually, UNIX is much older) is a GOOD thing, Software (Read OS) can evolve much more easily than hardware. Unix is a work in progress to this day, and this is why it is years (literally years) ahead of windows.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:08 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
Thunderhawks
Apr 9, 11:42 AM
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Yes!
280466
Yes!
280466
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 12:10 PM
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
nixd2001
Oct 12, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
rhett7660
Mar 27, 11:44 AM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:09 AM
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
Thanks for the kind words...Im just taking what MacVault is saying in context.
I dont believe (and if he is...Im 100% against his post. So forgive me folks if you thought I meant otherwise) that he's advocating death for gay youth...but rather a gay lifestyle will result in eternal death/damnation/etc as it conflicts with the scriptures he cited. I encourage folks to read my other posts (especially early pages) to get an idea of my own personal opinion. Stay well friend!
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
Thanks for the kind words...Im just taking what MacVault is saying in context.
I dont believe (and if he is...Im 100% against his post. So forgive me folks if you thought I meant otherwise) that he's advocating death for gay youth...but rather a gay lifestyle will result in eternal death/damnation/etc as it conflicts with the scriptures he cited. I encourage folks to read my other posts (especially early pages) to get an idea of my own personal opinion. Stay well friend!
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 11:11 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
rhett7660
Feb 21, 04:31 PM
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 11:48 AM
No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest.
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
chief of the CIA bin Laden
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 08:52 PM
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiFi etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Gee, you can't make that argument about ANY other phone now can you :rolleyes:
The point is that many reasons for not using LTE for the iPhone yet involve LTE-inflicted drawbacks because of its current, early stage in its life cycle, and battery life happens to be one of those drawbacks
Gee, you can't make that argument about ANY other phone now can you :rolleyes:
The point is that many reasons for not using LTE for the iPhone yet involve LTE-inflicted drawbacks because of its current, early stage in its life cycle, and battery life happens to be one of those drawbacks
skunk
Mar 15, 01:34 PM
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!Are you drunk?
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!Are you drunk?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:10 AM
Compared to the alternative, it certainly seems to be.
[source: human history]
Compared to what alternative?
[source: human history]
Compared to what alternative?
KPOM
Mar 11, 08:55 PM
Tonga (thousands of miles away) was just hit by a magnitude 6.1 earthquake. Eerie coincidence. And there was just another magnitude 6.8 aftershock in Japan. :(
Open your wallets for this one. Unlike Haiti, the Japanese government won't waste the money, and it will do some good.
Open your wallets for this one. Unlike Haiti, the Japanese government won't waste the money, and it will do some good.
7racer
Sep 12, 07:42 PM
This will be a nice solution if HD streaming is available.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:07 AM
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).