Black94TSi
Jun 19, 05:54 PM
Well with all my dropped calls on 3g I just decided to switch over to EDGE. Ever since I clicked 3g off, I have yet to drop a call. I do however get the random pauses/cut outs but never a dropped call.
This works for me at my house because I have wifi here. But it gets annoying having to always switch it over when I'm outside of my area. Wish there was an app that would work like a widget and you can just click it for 3g or EDGE without opening up 3 different windows.
This works for me at my house because I have wifi here. But it gets annoying having to always switch it over when I'm outside of my area. Wish there was an app that would work like a widget and you can just click it for 3g or EDGE without opening up 3 different windows.
Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 09:06 AM
I don't have a link for you but I too remember them saying you could run the entire app from the keyboard though I don't remember them specifically mentioning customizing hotkeys.
Yeah I figured as much.
Apple, Adobe, and a few others are starting to roll out with new products/apps/services and what not yet don't give us endusers much to go on besides what they mention to us briefly.
I am still waiting for answer to Thunderbolt ports being accidentally removed and Adobe doesn't give much on it's new subscription service. I'll just add FCPX details to the list.
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
As a content creator . . . I refuse to watch video that was shot out of someone's purse/man-bag.
I'd be stoked if it wasn't just the top left corner of the screen.
Yeah I figured as much.
Apple, Adobe, and a few others are starting to roll out with new products/apps/services and what not yet don't give us endusers much to go on besides what they mention to us briefly.
I am still waiting for answer to Thunderbolt ports being accidentally removed and Adobe doesn't give much on it's new subscription service. I'll just add FCPX details to the list.
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
As a content creator . . . I refuse to watch video that was shot out of someone's purse/man-bag.
I'd be stoked if it wasn't just the top left corner of the screen.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:51 PM
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
shawnce
Jul 12, 10:53 AM
The most intelligent post on this thread.
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
Mord
Jul 13, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
BuddyTronic
Jan 23, 01:30 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:19 AM
It's true. You see the video, you have doubts. And if someone says "You didn't see what you just saw",
Its not a great comfort.
Its not a great comfort.
bruinsrme
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
dAlen
Apr 13, 08:56 AM
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:16 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 10:01 PM
- but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
Alex
This was exactly my point when I called Apple. I mean, we have lower tech everything, bus, RAM, Hard drives, Graphics cars, etc.....so where is the money going?
I'll tell you where, Apple and Dell are the only two hardware makers to post profits in the worst economy since 1980. The stock market is down 30% and Apple stock has not kept pace.
Also, Abercombieboy, go back to page two of this thread, and re-read my Hitler analogy, this is not about bashing Apple. I am a mac guy, it's about calling a spade a spade.
Alex
This was exactly my point when I called Apple. I mean, we have lower tech everything, bus, RAM, Hard drives, Graphics cars, etc.....so where is the money going?
I'll tell you where, Apple and Dell are the only two hardware makers to post profits in the worst economy since 1980. The stock market is down 30% and Apple stock has not kept pace.
Also, Abercombieboy, go back to page two of this thread, and re-read my Hitler analogy, this is not about bashing Apple. I am a mac guy, it's about calling a spade a spade.
Liquorpuki
Mar 16, 01:18 PM
1/ Oil is relevant to electricity generation as we move forwards with more use of hybrids/electric vehicles. Using nuclear and renewables we have a chance to offset oil burning vehicles with non-fossil fuel power. Powering those electric vehicles off coal generated electricity limits their effectiveness.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
shawnce
Sep 26, 11:01 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
Manic Mouse
Jul 12, 07:58 AM
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
ubersoldat
Jun 5, 05:08 PM
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
makinao
Mar 11, 01:50 AM
I'm in the Philippines, and one side of the country is facing the epicenter. Right now, we are on tsunami alert level 1. This was the advisory an hour and a half ago. http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%201%2011%20March2011,%202PM.pdf
We pray it doesn't get here.
We pray it doesn't get here.
RichP
Oct 24, 10:30 PM
Damn multimedia, you are making me want that Dell! I just went to the Apple store to check out the 30" (pulled a stool up to the machine from the genius bar and tried to see if I could handle all that real estate). I am usually a sucker for Apple stuff and having matching componentry...but that dell is so CHEAP!
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?
munkery
May 2, 05:07 PM
on the desktop/laptop side which browsers will use webkit2?
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 06:05 PM
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:19 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
As I said above, I don't think the difference will be terribly huge. But if apple doesn't move the prices of their top computers too much we'll be in for a good price comparitively. Apple is also likely to offer a larger amount of RAM available. The Dell workstations I configured in the post could only be configured with up to 4GB RAM, anything else you had to add yourself. Of course, apple RAM may be more expensive by a good deal so we will probably see a lot of people buying 3rd party here.
And lets see if apple has another quad at 2x 2.3ghz dual core, that saves $520 more versus the 2x2.66 DC quad, or $1340 versus the 2x3GHz DC quad. Past that point you have diminishing returns. Quad core 2x2.0GHz dual core saves you $260 over the 2.3GHz, $780 over the 2.66, or $1600 over the 3GHz.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
As I said above, I don't think the difference will be terribly huge. But if apple doesn't move the prices of their top computers too much we'll be in for a good price comparitively. Apple is also likely to offer a larger amount of RAM available. The Dell workstations I configured in the post could only be configured with up to 4GB RAM, anything else you had to add yourself. Of course, apple RAM may be more expensive by a good deal so we will probably see a lot of people buying 3rd party here.
And lets see if apple has another quad at 2x 2.3ghz dual core, that saves $520 more versus the 2x2.66 DC quad, or $1340 versus the 2x3GHz DC quad. Past that point you have diminishing returns. Quad core 2x2.0GHz dual core saves you $260 over the 2.3GHz, $780 over the 2.66, or $1600 over the 3GHz.
Trash Can
Jun 19, 02:10 PM
I got the iPhone 3G two years ago after being with Verizon for seven. Love the phone - hate the network! I travel extensively. Some places my 3G is reliable, others not so much.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment