xStep
Apr 13, 03:40 AM
You can find some (not great) video of the event here: http://www.youtube.com/user/selfsponsored05
MacQuest
Jul 12, 10:08 AM
Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.
1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:47 PM
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
Object-X
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
I really don't understand all the comments about why doesn't it have a DVD player, or it doesn't have Tivo capabilities, ect. I really think you all are missing the point: it is designed to eventually replace all those technologies. OK, it doesnt' do it yet, but Jobs said something very important at the end of the keynote, and that was "you can see the direction we are heading".
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
leekohler
Mar 25, 02:47 PM
Again, I could care less what they say.
Why would you not care? Regardless of what you may think, the reality is that what they say encourages others to act, whether those people are Catholic or otherwise. Because it's a major religion, it gives a lot of people encouragement and an excuse to act.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Again, why do you think the extremist minorities do what they do? Where do you think the encouragement comes from? Gelfin just explained this to you and you completely ignored it.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
You have to register. If you don't register, you don't vote. What's the difference between that and a license? And again, marriage is a right, as has been pointed out clearly in this thread. Yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?
Why would you not care? Regardless of what you may think, the reality is that what they say encourages others to act, whether those people are Catholic or otherwise. Because it's a major religion, it gives a lot of people encouragement and an excuse to act.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Again, why do you think the extremist minorities do what they do? Where do you think the encouragement comes from? Gelfin just explained this to you and you completely ignored it.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
You have to register. If you don't register, you don't vote. What's the difference between that and a license? And again, marriage is a right, as has been pointed out clearly in this thread. Yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
clebin
Apr 13, 05:03 AM
A reminder of Jobs' stunning hypocrisy from a year ago:
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Congrats on another Cocoa port, Apple.
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Congrats on another Cocoa port, Apple.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:39 PM
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
Multimedia
Jul 12, 10:29 AM
I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.I agree. It is a classic that can also run classic. And it is incredibly quiet - a feature seldom mentioned that many find valuable. In any event the G5 Quad will still be the second fastest Mac after this first round of Mac Pros ship. And I'd still rather have four G5 cores than two Core 2 Duo cores. Wouldn't you?
But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. :)
But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. :)
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:04 PM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
THX1139
Jul 13, 02:40 AM
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
awmazz
Mar 11, 07:51 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
mdelvecchio
Apr 21, 02:53 PM
As of now android is predominately a smartphone OS. It is on tablets but it has not really began yet. In a few years looking at tablet OSs I believe it would be interesting where android will stand in comparison to apple.
still not raking in the huge lion's share of industry profits? apple is, android manufacturers arent.
still not raking in the huge lion's share of industry profits? apple is, android manufacturers arent.
Nuvi
Apr 13, 02:51 AM
I think they will still have the full studio boxed in store, I don't fancy downloading 6 DVDs worth of FCS from the app store, although it would make updates very easy.
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:46 AM
And would you pay $40 for it? I'm guessing you would.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
![black ops zombies five characters. [Read More] middot; Call of Duty:](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ubIXUek2FTAwMTBpET2aolPlZqc5ZDPiCTyM7RGxcJrEj0SlHY6DkoNqR-8MCjuOJIAk6UOT9JThmYgJu9ZBBAUBtWvK_b3aVrX9uKIeRqwV4weI05-ia0UbF_sOWAbs7D9aqgZCqu-pAY-im35c-o4YPDsPQh3wP9d8eT=s0-d "[Read More] middot; Call of Duty:")
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:07 AM
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
awmazz
Mar 11, 08:57 AM
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
camarobh
Oct 7, 09:04 PM
No way. Apple will continue to release new hardware and updates as the iPhone continues through it's lifecycle. It is a recognized brand and like it or not, the control Apple exerts over the user experience maintains it's value.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Popeye206
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
dduff617
Sep 20, 01:31 AM
given what i know of the device, including it's form factor, i am skeptical about the report the it contains a hard drive.
snoopy
Oct 11, 12:01 PM
Hate to drop in late like this, but the G3 had the same FPU as the 603, not the better one in the 604. When Motorola built the G4, they did not upgrade the FPU, but added AltiVec. This is what I understand. So, yes, double precision floating point does run poorly, with that old 603 FPU.
No comments:
Post a Comment