bigandy
Sep 26, 04:29 AM
this will be fantastic for rendering stuff :D
Machead III
Aug 29, 11:44 AM
Just look at peopel today, even in this forum. Just 5 years ago there would be far less worried faces around, we left that to the lab coats and their crackpot theories.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
Rafterman
Apr 13, 07:54 AM
$199 would be OK for a high quality consumer editing package. But $299 is still a bit steep, unless you are a Pro. But if you are a Pro, you are probably turned off by some of the product's dumbing down. So I am not sure who Apple is trying to appeal to here.
thejoshu
Mar 19, 10:31 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.
Al Coholic
Apr 28, 10:31 PM
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:36 AM
And don't forget, Groovey, that only a small percentage of Americans are considered more of the hard-line political peeps.
rikers_mailbox
Sep 20, 03:03 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:29 PM
no, i've not posted these before...
Not you - someone presented these to me before. They have been heavily edited to suit a point. In some cases, what's being said contradicts an earlier sentence.
the point of
is that if he says whoever guards his chastity is guaranteed paradise then the opposite is true.
Yes. However, remaining in chastity is a real gem. I don't think anyone, till date has ever achieved that.
Most honour killings occur in muslim majority countries, or are perpetrated by muslims.
Correlation does not mean causation. (This phrase is hardwired into my head - it was the only mark I lost in a Biology A Level paper).
and also:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion? A person might kill his offspring or offsprings offspring for dishonouring the family.
The thing with that, and I remember someone talking about it, is that there had to be certain conditions which were met before honour killing was even an option.
In the cases I've seen, it is murder without trial. Now Islam upholds the sanctity of life, and the Quran declares that killing one innocent human being is akin to killing the entire human race.
Now, the problem of �honour killings� is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their own personal virtue; rather, it is a problem of domination, power and hatred of women who, in these instances, are viewed as nothing more than servants to the family, both physically and symbolically.
Islamic Scholars have continuously condemned honour killings. It is not for us to judge, that is for Allah to decide.
in your refutations of my point you don't seem to find any problem with women being beaten for being unchaste lol.
[quote]
You didn't bring it to my attention ;)
[quote]
my point in mentioning Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196: and the other one which deals with testifying against oneself four times is that it shows that counts as four witnesses for the purposes of someone being found guilty of adultery.
Yes. Whilst this may seem weird, the person giving the witness, if indeed four times, must be trustworthy. In this case she was. She wanted to repent, knowing the proceeds that would occur.
Not you - someone presented these to me before. They have been heavily edited to suit a point. In some cases, what's being said contradicts an earlier sentence.
the point of
is that if he says whoever guards his chastity is guaranteed paradise then the opposite is true.
Yes. However, remaining in chastity is a real gem. I don't think anyone, till date has ever achieved that.
Most honour killings occur in muslim majority countries, or are perpetrated by muslims.
Correlation does not mean causation. (This phrase is hardwired into my head - it was the only mark I lost in a Biology A Level paper).
and also:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion? A person might kill his offspring or offsprings offspring for dishonouring the family.
The thing with that, and I remember someone talking about it, is that there had to be certain conditions which were met before honour killing was even an option.
In the cases I've seen, it is murder without trial. Now Islam upholds the sanctity of life, and the Quran declares that killing one innocent human being is akin to killing the entire human race.
Now, the problem of �honour killings� is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their own personal virtue; rather, it is a problem of domination, power and hatred of women who, in these instances, are viewed as nothing more than servants to the family, both physically and symbolically.
Islamic Scholars have continuously condemned honour killings. It is not for us to judge, that is for Allah to decide.
in your refutations of my point you don't seem to find any problem with women being beaten for being unchaste lol.
[quote]
You didn't bring it to my attention ;)
[quote]
my point in mentioning Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196: and the other one which deals with testifying against oneself four times is that it shows that counts as four witnesses for the purposes of someone being found guilty of adultery.
Yes. Whilst this may seem weird, the person giving the witness, if indeed four times, must be trustworthy. In this case she was. She wanted to repent, knowing the proceeds that would occur.
EricNau
Mar 15, 01:53 AM
Seems very serious to me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
It depends on who you want to believe. The situation is serious, yes, but is that quote truly representative of the situation? Professor Josef Oehmen, MIT:
There was and will not be any significant release of radioactivity. By 'significant,' I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on, say, a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Link (http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
It depends on who you want to believe. The situation is serious, yes, but is that quote truly representative of the situation? Professor Josef Oehmen, MIT:
There was and will not be any significant release of radioactivity. By 'significant,' I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on, say, a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Link (http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/)
CallmeKenneth
Sep 20, 07:20 AM
This is just one of those things where we have no idea if it'll catch on until people start buying it (or not, as the case may be!). With anything else Apple have brought out (e.g. iPod) the need has been fairly obvious and you could tell that it was going to be a minor hit at least. I don't feel the same way about iTV. To me it just feels like *yet another* silver/grey box to stick under my TV, adding one more cable to the countless ones already there...
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
AtomBoy
Oct 9, 11:01 PM
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
Rasta4i
Apr 21, 04:02 AM
Irregardless of whether or not carriers will lock it down, it's available RIGHT NOW. And in the event that they put in measures to stop it, someone will find a way around it eventually.
It was NEVER available for iOS.
Your wariness in downloading apps doesn't negate the fact that there are many apps available, and all you have to do is spend an extra 20 seconds reading reviews to find out if the app is legitimate or not.
I had poor battery life on my Optimus as well. Then I found Data Switch, and my battery lasts forever now. I haven't tested how long it will go, but I imagine I'd easily get 2 days out of it.
I just hate that people have to blindly bash Android products, and this isn't aimed directly at you, just the majority of users on this site in general.
I respect the iPhone, it's a beautiful piece of hardware.
It works, and it works well.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
The value in an iPhone just isn't there for me in particular.
The way you speak about tethering is as if apple are charging you for it... I live in the UK where the iphone is on every network now, some allow tethering for free some made you pay. I was with o2, they were the first network to get the iphone over here and they no longer charge extra for tethering. you saying it was never available on iOS confuses me as its clearly not true and based on the carrier
It was NEVER available for iOS.
Your wariness in downloading apps doesn't negate the fact that there are many apps available, and all you have to do is spend an extra 20 seconds reading reviews to find out if the app is legitimate or not.
I had poor battery life on my Optimus as well. Then I found Data Switch, and my battery lasts forever now. I haven't tested how long it will go, but I imagine I'd easily get 2 days out of it.
I just hate that people have to blindly bash Android products, and this isn't aimed directly at you, just the majority of users on this site in general.
I respect the iPhone, it's a beautiful piece of hardware.
It works, and it works well.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
The value in an iPhone just isn't there for me in particular.
The way you speak about tethering is as if apple are charging you for it... I live in the UK where the iphone is on every network now, some allow tethering for free some made you pay. I was with o2, they were the first network to get the iphone over here and they no longer charge extra for tethering. you saying it was never available on iOS confuses me as its clearly not true and based on the carrier
c.hilding
Oct 27, 01:14 AM
You are right Multimedia, it's too early to worry about the FSB, we don't even know what rate they've put it at yet. ;)
Mord
Jul 12, 09:01 AM
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
alexdrinan
Jul 12, 04:04 PM
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:33 PM
I'm actually not a Windows developer (hence my nick :) ) but from what I understand you can do most of your fp stuff using the P4's vector engine. I also wanted to add to my first post that in integer ops, the G4 only achives clock parity. It goes without saying that the massively clocked P4's will well outperform a G4 in integer.
JFreak
Jul 13, 02:11 AM
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.
Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.
Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:39 PM
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ...
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
EagerDragon
Sep 12, 08:47 PM
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Not the same as a mini. You can not play a DVD like in a mini, you can not store content on a permanent basis like you can with a mini, and is not a full computer like a mini. It has a very small subset of the capabilities of the mini but with HDMI. A mini can do the same and more.
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Not the same as a mini. You can not play a DVD like in a mini, you can not store content on a permanent basis like you can with a mini, and is not a full computer like a mini. It has a very small subset of the capabilities of the mini but with HDMI. A mini can do the same and more.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 02:32 PM
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
Howdr
Mar 18, 09:26 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
vniow
Jul 14, 02:13 PM
Can anyone tell me the purpose of dual drive slots nowadays? I can see the use for them (and had computers with) when they were limited to one function, i.e. DVD-ROM for one and a CD-RW for the other but now that everything can happen in one drive with speed not being an issue, is it really nececcary to have two?
No comments:
Post a Comment