CaoCao
Mar 26, 09:07 PM
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
more...
madoka
Mar 18, 06:07 PM
Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes.
Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?
Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?
more...
blackstarliner
Sep 20, 12:00 PM
It will be perfect for me. I need a video airport express type machine to connect to a big old projector in a cupboard that I want to feed dvd to wirelessly from the mini.
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
tkermit
Mar 15, 07:29 PM
There's too much hysteria over this. This plant has been hit by a force 9 earthquake and a tsunami and yet although some radiation has been released this is by no means anything like as serious as Chernobyl.
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale. :(
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale. :(
more...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
more...
LumbermanSVO
Mar 26, 09:45 PM
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
more...
CaoCao
Mar 26, 06:59 PM
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
more...
Rodimus Prime
Mar 12, 01:44 PM
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 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.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
more...
cluthz
Mar 19, 03:41 AM
In the perfect world, this wouldn't be neccecary.
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
more...
puma1552
Mar 15, 10:10 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
more...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 06:59 PM
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 09:27 PM
You are confusing yourself in a convoluted mess you've created. In fact, you are twisting everything to suit what you want.
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
mikethebigo
Apr 8, 10:46 PM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 06:11 AM
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that?
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.
more...
leekohler
Mar 26, 01:38 AM
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
au revoir
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
more...
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:20 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
more...
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Backtothemac:
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
matticus008
Mar 20, 11:01 PM
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
I'm not here to impose what I think is right. I think that all electronic music-playing devices should support all of the DRM models so that regardless of where I get my music legally, I can use it. I don't like that I can have an mp3 player that can't play the music I buy on iTunes, but I've already written the companies involved, as well as my Senator and state and national level Congressmen. I've worked with people who make the decisions about law to bring this issue to their attention. That's not the point here. No one is stopping you from reasoning or thinking, even though it's clear you have chosen not to do so. But that's your right. It's not that I disagree, it's that the law disagrees. Independent of that, on a fundamental, moral level, breaking your word (wrt the iTunes TOS) cannot be morally justified. Don't give your consent and agreement if you don't intend to uphold it. Where is your moral compass now? If you don't value your word and don't care about breaking the law and you want to break DRM or pirate music, go ahead. But don't come here and say that it's right to do it, because it's simply not. There are legal ways to address your concerns, and you are not using them. There's no excuse.
EDIT: missed this little gem earlier...
I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you.
I would encourage my children to question and think and come to their own conclusions, just as I encourage students to do in my volunteer work. I'd expect them to stand up for what they believe in, and if they find an injustice, they should do what they can to stop it. That said, if they break the law in doing so, they must also know that there are consequences for that and accept them.
But what you are proposing is not questioning, it's self-serving rationalization. I'm not proposing that anyone roll over and agree with me, because I don't need anyone to agree with me. The law isn't something to agree with or disagree with, there's no room for debate. I expect people to question the law and hold their government accountable, and to act for change when appropriate. That is separate from deciding that the law isn't a good one and just not following it, based on your judgment. It doesn't free you from the consequences. If someone decides that the law that says you stop when the light is red is a bad law and just keeps going, what they just did is wrong, whether or not they get caught or prosecuted. If you do get pulled over, your personal idea that the law is stupid is not going to get you off the hook and you are very much responsible for paying the fines/doing the time.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
I'm not here to impose what I think is right. I think that all electronic music-playing devices should support all of the DRM models so that regardless of where I get my music legally, I can use it. I don't like that I can have an mp3 player that can't play the music I buy on iTunes, but I've already written the companies involved, as well as my Senator and state and national level Congressmen. I've worked with people who make the decisions about law to bring this issue to their attention. That's not the point here. No one is stopping you from reasoning or thinking, even though it's clear you have chosen not to do so. But that's your right. It's not that I disagree, it's that the law disagrees. Independent of that, on a fundamental, moral level, breaking your word (wrt the iTunes TOS) cannot be morally justified. Don't give your consent and agreement if you don't intend to uphold it. Where is your moral compass now? If you don't value your word and don't care about breaking the law and you want to break DRM or pirate music, go ahead. But don't come here and say that it's right to do it, because it's simply not. There are legal ways to address your concerns, and you are not using them. There's no excuse.
EDIT: missed this little gem earlier...
I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you.
I would encourage my children to question and think and come to their own conclusions, just as I encourage students to do in my volunteer work. I'd expect them to stand up for what they believe in, and if they find an injustice, they should do what they can to stop it. That said, if they break the law in doing so, they must also know that there are consequences for that and accept them.
But what you are proposing is not questioning, it's self-serving rationalization. I'm not proposing that anyone roll over and agree with me, because I don't need anyone to agree with me. The law isn't something to agree with or disagree with, there's no room for debate. I expect people to question the law and hold their government accountable, and to act for change when appropriate. That is separate from deciding that the law isn't a good one and just not following it, based on your judgment. It doesn't free you from the consequences. If someone decides that the law that says you stop when the light is red is a bad law and just keeps going, what they just did is wrong, whether or not they get caught or prosecuted. If you do get pulled over, your personal idea that the law is stupid is not going to get you off the hook and you are very much responsible for paying the fines/doing the time.
more...
carmenodie
Mar 18, 08:14 AM
I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
more...
wordoflife
Mar 13, 01:48 AM
I hope the best for Japan. The pictures and videos are very horrifying and saddening.
more...
steve_hill4
Jul 12, 06:13 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
more...
balamw
Sep 20, 07:51 PM
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
No comments:
Post a Comment