iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 10:55 AM
Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance?
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Huntn
Mar 15, 08:20 PM
Once again my mind has been boggled on the Rachel Maddow show. Tonight she is talking about the problems at shutdown Japanese reactors, reactors that I think were shutdown before the earthquake, not problems with the reactors themselves, but problems with the HUGE POOLS of spent fuel rods, with accumulations of fuel rods in far larger amounts than what is found in an individual reactor. According to her, they need to be cooled for up to ten years before they can be put into dry storage. Having lost their cooling water they could be more dangerous than a reactor cause of the quantity of rods and they are heating up and causing explosions potentially releasing radioactive particles into the environment.
Based on what I said in post #193. Nuclear Reactors can never be truly shutdown. *Without* a continuous flow of cooling water they become dangerous and self destructive very quickly. See this link: The Bane of Nuclear Power- Waste Storage (http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html).
Based on what I said in post #193. Nuclear Reactors can never be truly shutdown. *Without* a continuous flow of cooling water they become dangerous and self destructive very quickly. See this link: The Bane of Nuclear Power- Waste Storage (http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html).
bfar5
Aug 17, 07:30 AM
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
lmao
lmao
jegbook
Apr 12, 03:47 PM
Or press print-screen. It puts the screen capture on the clipboard instead of saving to the desktop, but just as easy. AFAIK there is no simple equiv. to cmd-shft-4. I usually open in Paint and crop.
If you can get your fingers to do the gymnastics, command-control-shift-3 (or 4) will put your screen shot (or partial screen shot) to the Clipboard instead of a file to allow for pasting where you want to.
Cheers.
If you can get your fingers to do the gymnastics, command-control-shift-3 (or 4) will put your screen shot (or partial screen shot) to the Clipboard instead of a file to allow for pasting where you want to.
Cheers.
FieldingMellish
Jun 22, 09:29 PM
I don't get dropped calls at Verizon, but will occasionally receive a voice mail message someone left for me weeks ago. Also, just at my house, Verizon cell service fades in and out. Hello, AT&T and iPhone 4.
Millah
Apr 13, 02:23 AM
FCP has been plagued with FUNDAMENTAL problems since it's creation. And initial peaks seems to suggest that instead of building on it's basis and creating a stronger, leaner, more professional tool Apple has once again decided to ditch it's professional (and there must be a distinction) users for the prosumer crowd.
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant’s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
I have heard PLENTY of true pros that do professional work for major studios that have praised this new Final Cut Pro, and I also saw an entire room full onf Final Cut Pro enthusiasts and professionals with their jaws on the floor. I guess you wouldn't consider one of the lead editors at Bunim/Murray to be "pro" enough huh?
Anytime Apple updates something or completely changes something to make it modern or a more attractive UI, you all piss and moan about how Apple is abandoning you and doesn't care about pros anymore. Get a tissue, no one cares. Most of the open minded pros who are open to change and welcome it saw something amazing in FCPX. People like you who will bitch even if Apple moved the window close toggles a fraction of an inch down the title bar (ie App Store) really need to accept the fact that things need to change at some point, and it's usually for the better.
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant’s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
I have heard PLENTY of true pros that do professional work for major studios that have praised this new Final Cut Pro, and I also saw an entire room full onf Final Cut Pro enthusiasts and professionals with their jaws on the floor. I guess you wouldn't consider one of the lead editors at Bunim/Murray to be "pro" enough huh?
Anytime Apple updates something or completely changes something to make it modern or a more attractive UI, you all piss and moan about how Apple is abandoning you and doesn't care about pros anymore. Get a tissue, no one cares. Most of the open minded pros who are open to change and welcome it saw something amazing in FCPX. People like you who will bitch even if Apple moved the window close toggles a fraction of an inch down the title bar (ie App Store) really need to accept the fact that things need to change at some point, and it's usually for the better.
Popeye206
Apr 21, 08:53 AM
Look Android lovers... this is an Apple site. You don't need to call us "Fanboys" in a condescending way here. We are here because we love our Macs, iOS devices or we develop for them and like to keep up on the news. Yes... many here are "fanboys".
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
balamw
Apr 6, 12:06 PM
Don't help evil screw Joe.
If Joe has already gotten past the FUD from the vast majority of Windows oriented sources to come here, and seriously consider a Mac, this won't dissuade him as there is plenty of positive in the thread.
There's plenty of FUD out there. Macs are only good for dummies (It's Unix under the hood, plenty of serious power there), Macs are underspecced and overpriced (Not really by the time you compare apples to apples), Macs can't do X or Y (Especially since they run Windows they can do anything a Windows box can), ... By the time you are seriously considering a Mac you've got to be beyond that.
B
If Joe has already gotten past the FUD from the vast majority of Windows oriented sources to come here, and seriously consider a Mac, this won't dissuade him as there is plenty of positive in the thread.
There's plenty of FUD out there. Macs are only good for dummies (It's Unix under the hood, plenty of serious power there), Macs are underspecced and overpriced (Not really by the time you compare apples to apples), Macs can't do X or Y (Especially since they run Windows they can do anything a Windows box can), ... By the time you are seriously considering a Mac you've got to be beyond that.
B
firestarter
Mar 13, 01:21 PM
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
~loserman~
Mar 20, 05:17 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
killr_b
Oct 25, 11:49 PM
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
sammachin
Mar 18, 05:00 AM
Actually the way they are most likely doing this and the way most carriers do it is using some deep packet inspection kit or maybe even a transparent proxy.
They can look for browsing traffic on port 80 then simply pick out any users where the user agent string is that of a computer OS so Windows|Mac|Linux.
2 options to get around it are: either change your browsers UA to that of the iPhone although this will often give you mobile sites or better still send everything down a VPN, that way its encrypted and they can;t see what your doing just how many bytes :-) High VPN usage shouldn't be odd either as the iPhone has a VPN client so you could feasibly be using that.
(Used to work in a carrier designing these systems so I should know!)
They can look for browsing traffic on port 80 then simply pick out any users where the user agent string is that of a computer OS so Windows|Mac|Linux.
2 options to get around it are: either change your browsers UA to that of the iPhone although this will often give you mobile sites or better still send everything down a VPN, that way its encrypted and they can;t see what your doing just how many bytes :-) High VPN usage shouldn't be odd either as the iPhone has a VPN client so you could feasibly be using that.
(Used to work in a carrier designing these systems so I should know!)
peharri
Sep 22, 02:33 PM
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
neekap
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
Don't forget, Apple sells hardware. Producing good software is a means to get people to buy more Macs, so keeping the price down on the software will get more people reliant upon it and in turn sell more Macs. Sure, they are making it more accessible to the hobby editor, but it doesn't mean its not a good product and still a means to get even more pro users to buy the latest Macs.
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Sydde
Apr 25, 12:51 AM
At another website, other posters kept arguing that there were different kinds of theism and that agnosticism. My philosophy professors taught me that that atheism is the belief that there's no God, and that an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether there's a God. "
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
lilo777
Apr 28, 04:35 PM
Wow. Just... wow.
What's so surprising? Aren't you running Windows on your Mac too?
What's so surprising? Aren't you running Windows on your Mac too?
chabig
Sep 25, 08:44 AM
Considering all the posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "hard drive" might just be some flash memory.Interesting idea, but I have to disagree. Given the amount of storage video takes, there is no way Apple could sell a device with enough flash memory for $299. A hard drive is much more likely.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 01:34 PM
It would help the iPad, in the manner you are describing it, if, like an Android/Honeycomb tablet it was a machine in it's own right.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
<snip>
This whole argument is asinine.
If you don't have a PC, there's nothing that you need to "sync" or "move files" from. And the iPad works perfectly fine on its own.
You're saying that "if I have files on my PC, I need a PC to get them to my iPad". No kidding!
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
<snip>
This whole argument is asinine.
If you don't have a PC, there's nothing that you need to "sync" or "move files" from. And the iPad works perfectly fine on its own.
You're saying that "if I have files on my PC, I need a PC to get them to my iPad". No kidding!
UnixMac
Oct 7, 07:54 PM
Hi AtomBoy......great english for being from Japan, or are you an ex-pat?
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:41 AM
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance! If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
robeddie
Apr 13, 08:48 AM
Not having seen FCPX first hand I will completely withhold judgement on the app until I do.
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
Mord
Jul 13, 08:21 AM
the imac G5 has sufficient cooling to handle conroe, the macbook just has a heatplate connected to a heatpipe connected to small radiator, the imac has a full blow large copper heatsink over it similar to those used on 1U servers which can handle 100w xeons.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
No comments:
Post a Comment