awmazz
Mar 12, 06:51 AM
NHK World is reporting "the govt's nuclear and industrial safety agency has announced it believes Japan's first ever nuclear meltdown has now occured at plant #1".
Edit - oddly enough it was just a simple statement. There is so much other news to report and video to show about the quake and tsunami damage that we have this bizarre situation where something that would otherwise dominate the news is just another byline at the moment if/until it gets worse.
Edit - oddly enough it was just a simple statement. There is so much other news to report and video to show about the quake and tsunami damage that we have this bizarre situation where something that would otherwise dominate the news is just another byline at the moment if/until it gets worse.
Liquorpuki
Mar 16, 12:40 PM
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than powering OLD stations, oil does not have a direct role in our portfolio.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than powering OLD stations, oil does not have a direct role in our portfolio.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:47 PM
The people who put the "blood" on Christianity's hands have never used the Bible to justify it. The mujahideen use the Qur'an and hadith to justify their actions.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
.jpg "clipart spring flowers,")
Multimedia
Sep 26, 05:04 PM
You're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:16 AM
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
The point is, it's Apple. It's where the entire market is headed. It's what got RIM, Samsung, Motorola, Microsoft, and other major players all worked up.
This isn't pokemon or some drug-addled actor.
It's what used to be a minor subset of the industry that is now breaking out and expanding rapidly. For one, it's mobile. The mobile market is massive and is experiencing nothing but growth. These tablet and pad devices are the next step in mobile computing, to the degree that they will supersede laptops and notebooks.
The point is, it's Apple. It's where the entire market is headed. It's what got RIM, Samsung, Motorola, Microsoft, and other major players all worked up.
This isn't pokemon or some drug-addled actor.
It's what used to be a minor subset of the industry that is now breaking out and expanding rapidly. For one, it's mobile. The mobile market is massive and is experiencing nothing but growth. These tablet and pad devices are the next step in mobile computing, to the degree that they will supersede laptops and notebooks.
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 04:06 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for client�le a little up market from Adobe users.
Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for client�le a little up market from Adobe users.
pik.
Oct 7, 01:58 PM
if iPhone OS remains to 2 cell phones then YES in the future iPhone will decrease...
it is sure.
Apple must do Phones in 3 price scale...fully unlocked and without the stupid blocks in terms of closed OS.
it is sure.
Apple must do Phones in 3 price scale...fully unlocked and without the stupid blocks in terms of closed OS.
Multimedia
Oct 12, 01:40 PM
Forgot they are removing the cost of the pair of 2.66GHz Woodies. So the configure Processor lines should probably be only:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
skunk
Apr 23, 03:55 PM
Yay! It's .Andy! G'day!
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
truz
Jul 7, 06:14 PM
And I will never set foot in an Apple store again. They are the definition of needless, bulls**t arrogance. If my Macbook Pro, either Macbook, iMac, iPad or any of the 5 iPhones I own ever need serviced, I'll call and ask them to send a box rather than deal with that mall trash again.
I agree. I rather have a box sent out then step into a store. I'm 45 minutes away from an Apple Store and a boat load of traffic in the Orlando area.
I agree. I rather have a box sent out then step into a store. I'm 45 minutes away from an Apple Store and a boat load of traffic in the Orlando area.
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 27, 08:37 AM
It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:04 AM
The transsexual kinda kills the whole message though. "Learn to accept yourself for who you are, except if you can't, then deform your body to look like someone else."
Homosexuality may not be a disease, but Gender Identity Disorder certainly is.
Homosexuality may not be a disease, but Gender Identity Disorder certainly is.
archipellago
May 2, 04:32 PM
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
I work for one of the biggest bank in the world and specialise in bank fraud, we liaise with the major law enforcement group all over the world.
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough can save millions....with the right info.
mac users tend to be socially engineered via simpler methods anyway, wonder why that is...? :rolleyes:
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
I work for one of the biggest bank in the world and specialise in bank fraud, we liaise with the major law enforcement group all over the world.
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough can save millions....with the right info.
mac users tend to be socially engineered via simpler methods anyway, wonder why that is...? :rolleyes:
bentmywookie
Mar 18, 03:44 PM
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
Well put - I can't believe some people actually wrote "hopefully Apple will fix/shut this down soon" - do you enjoy having usage of your music crippled? I certainly don't.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
Well put - I can't believe some people actually wrote "hopefully Apple will fix/shut this down soon" - do you enjoy having usage of your music crippled? I certainly don't.
Drewnrupe
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
Please excuse me if I am missing something totally obvious here as I am a relatively new convert to Apple.
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
Mord
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 06:52 PM
Nope, sorry, no fun "regardless", for others have a dim view of any speculation outside their own pre-conceived notions.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
I was referring to the believers.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
I was referring to the believers.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:41 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
MacRumors
Sep 25, 11:29 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Daily Tech claims to have received details for Intel's next major Core-based Xeon processor (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4253), code-named Clovertown. The processors will be in the Xeon 53xx family (current Mac Pros use Woodcrest cores that are in the Xeon 51xx family), and will be available in the following configurations:
Processor # / Clock (GHz) / Bus (MHz) / L2 Cache (MB) / Price (in 1,000 unit lots)
Daily Tech claims to have received details for Intel's next major Core-based Xeon processor (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4253), code-named Clovertown. The processors will be in the Xeon 53xx family (current Mac Pros use Woodcrest cores that are in the Xeon 51xx family), and will be available in the following configurations:
Processor # / Clock (GHz) / Bus (MHz) / L2 Cache (MB) / Price (in 1,000 unit lots)
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 08:08 PM
Poor archbishop Tomasi hasn't been able to accept that the public is increasingly appalled with his church's stance on sex and that the public is increasingly offended by his church's continuing attempts to impose its beliefs on the general public.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:50 PM
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
slinger1968
Nov 2, 08:17 PM
The Source Article Of This Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2982349&postcount=1) "It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season."There's nothing in any of those articles that mentions the extra heat that the new CPU's will produce. I'm skeptical of marketing release type stories without bench tests to back up their claims.
Hopefully Apple has indeed already addressed the additional heat issue but I guess I'll wait for the actual benchmarks. I believe the NDA's are up tomorrow so the real data should come in soon.
Hopefully Apple has indeed already addressed the additional heat issue but I guess I'll wait for the actual benchmarks. I believe the NDA's are up tomorrow so the real data should come in soon.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 01:04 PM
Sounds amazing like the same business model that has been followed by the Mac. A device with OS competing against an OS that will run on many devices. Current Mac market share 5.12% current Windows 92.77% (based on numbers from Market Share) . Does anyone else see this connection?
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
No comments:
Post a Comment