Eraserhead
Mar 28, 02:11 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
megfilmworks
Oct 8, 11:02 AM
When pigs fly.
DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 11:15 PM
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
OperatorAce
Apr 20, 05:31 PM
Zero on both platforms? If they exists in 2.021
Android has plenty of malware issues, including virus like programs.
Android has plenty of malware issues, including virus like programs.
NikeTalk
Mar 18, 09:40 AM
That guy that used 90GBs should be the first one converted.
samdweck
Oct 7, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by arn
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
ShavenYak
Sep 20, 12:27 PM
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
... Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
Perhaps what Apple should do is have two types of TV "season passes" - one at the current price point (or perhaps slightly cheaper) that gives you the episodes permanently, and one that's substantially cheaper ($4.99 per season or thereabouts?) where the shows expire after a period of time, or a certain number of viewings.
They'd also need to have the shows available to start streaming as soon as they are broadcast - a lot of people aren't interested in buying them after the fact because they want to be able to talk about the show areound the water cooler at work the next day.
A setup like that, and I'd think about dropping cable like a bad habit. The only catch is live sporting events. Unless Apple could capture those broadcasts and begin streaming them to subscribers in real time.... imagine a season pass for your favorite team. The pro leagues would be tough negotiators, but colleges would probably jump at the prospect of having all their football games available on iTunes and getting a cut of the action.
... Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
Perhaps what Apple should do is have two types of TV "season passes" - one at the current price point (or perhaps slightly cheaper) that gives you the episodes permanently, and one that's substantially cheaper ($4.99 per season or thereabouts?) where the shows expire after a period of time, or a certain number of viewings.
They'd also need to have the shows available to start streaming as soon as they are broadcast - a lot of people aren't interested in buying them after the fact because they want to be able to talk about the show areound the water cooler at work the next day.
A setup like that, and I'd think about dropping cable like a bad habit. The only catch is live sporting events. Unless Apple could capture those broadcasts and begin streaming them to subscribers in real time.... imagine a season pass for your favorite team. The pro leagues would be tough negotiators, but colleges would probably jump at the prospect of having all their football games available on iTunes and getting a cut of the action.
Full of Win
Apr 13, 03:26 AM
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
beaster
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
TorontoLRT
Jun 21, 06:49 AM
^Ummmm... Is there any logic to that, or are you just "hahahaing" to get attention?
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
joepunk
Mar 11, 01:16 AM
Just heard about it on CBC late night news. Terrible.
yukio
Aug 25, 10:17 PM
SJ said it takes 2 years to build a cell tower in the bay area. compared to something like 6 months in texas
it's not a sf bay area problem nearly as much as it is a san francisco problem.
i live in the city, and i swear - while the rest of us are working - the "neighbors against things we don't understand" go to each and every city board meeting and derail cell antenna applications.
even though we have huge chunks of the city with electrified light rail wires overhead emitting their own em radiation, it's the cellphones that must be stopped.
i'm not making excuses for att - because i think that they have experience deploying in plenty of difficult markets - they just choose to not work the system to get things done.
and let's face it - service always declines in a single-provider model.
it's not a sf bay area problem nearly as much as it is a san francisco problem.
i live in the city, and i swear - while the rest of us are working - the "neighbors against things we don't understand" go to each and every city board meeting and derail cell antenna applications.
even though we have huge chunks of the city with electrified light rail wires overhead emitting their own em radiation, it's the cellphones that must be stopped.
i'm not making excuses for att - because i think that they have experience deploying in plenty of difficult markets - they just choose to not work the system to get things done.
and let's face it - service always declines in a single-provider model.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 11:24 PM
Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
milo
Sep 20, 08:16 AM
For some reason I convinved myself that Apple would only permit videos tagged as originating from their store.
No way. That would mean that users couldn't even watch their own home movies. Apple would NEVER do that, it would be a huge conflict with their other selling points.
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
What would they leave out? Didn't they already say it does photo slideshows?
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
That would be the worst idea ever. People on these forums are ALWAYS disappointed, even with products that turn out to be huge sellers for apple. People whine and whine...and then they buy the product anyway.
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
IT IS NOT THE FINAL NAME. It's only a codename, it will ship with a different name.
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
I already have a DVD player. Why the hell would I want to see the price go up even more just to give me redundant technology? Do you complain that your printer doesn't scan documents?
No way. That would mean that users couldn't even watch their own home movies. Apple would NEVER do that, it would be a huge conflict with their other selling points.
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
What would they leave out? Didn't they already say it does photo slideshows?
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
That would be the worst idea ever. People on these forums are ALWAYS disappointed, even with products that turn out to be huge sellers for apple. People whine and whine...and then they buy the product anyway.
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
IT IS NOT THE FINAL NAME. It's only a codename, it will ship with a different name.
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
I already have a DVD player. Why the hell would I want to see the price go up even more just to give me redundant technology? Do you complain that your printer doesn't scan documents?
AidenShaw
Oct 26, 07:04 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
ghostface147
May 2, 09:24 AM
I am not concerned with malware that requires user intervention and a few clicks to install things. I am more concerned with malware that installs silently without you seeing any pop-ups or stuff like that.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
jasonbrennan
Jul 12, 12:34 PM
What about BLU RAY?
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 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.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
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...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
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.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
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...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
brianus
Sep 26, 12:01 PM
Hey here's a question: what comes after Clovertown? The roadmap is kinda confusing after that from what I've seen. When can we reasonably expect Clovertown's successor, and what will it consist of?
I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?
I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?
Peace
Sep 20, 12:56 AM
I always thought it would have a hard drive.Even though MacCentral says it doesn't I don't think Bob Iger is so dumb to not know it does.
Watch for EyeTV and Apple coming together over the next 3 months!!
This WILL be a killer box.
Watch for EyeTV and Apple coming together over the next 3 months!!
This WILL be a killer box.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No comments:
Post a Comment