nbs2
Aug 29, 12:06 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
york2600
Aug 29, 02:59 PM
If you head over to Apple's environmental page and read through it (which I have done several times) you'll see that much of what they claim to be doing for the environment is actually more along the line of what is called natural capitalism. That's not to say it's bad, but don't let them fool you into thinking they have the environments best interests at heart. They're looking out for the bottom line. They make claims about LCDs, but manufacturing energy and toxic inputs on LCDs vs CRTs is a pretty poor argument (read LCD vs CRT report by EPA to see exact figures). Apple can claim a lot of environmental victories, but many of them are simple side benefits of the movement in their product line. LCDs use less energy and have lower cooling costs in lab environments. Core Duos take less energy than G5s. These are true, but Apple didn't switch to save the world.
Dell has come under a lot of pressure recently for their poor environmental track record. From their lack of a takeback program to their recycling of components using prison labor. They're been forced to clean up their act. They have a pretty amazing takeback program. Apple has a really horrible one. I've used both. Apple needs to step up here. They have a program that seems to exist simply so they can say it's there. Apple has also pulled products from the European market instead of redesigning them to meet new toxics standards. Dell switched suppliers and kept their products world wide. Greenpeace should be targetting Apple here. I hope Apple reacts. Good quality products, with a long lifespan a low environmental impact benefit everyone.
Dell has come under a lot of pressure recently for their poor environmental track record. From their lack of a takeback program to their recycling of components using prison labor. They're been forced to clean up their act. They have a pretty amazing takeback program. Apple has a really horrible one. I've used both. Apple needs to step up here. They have a program that seems to exist simply so they can say it's there. Apple has also pulled products from the European market instead of redesigning them to meet new toxics standards. Dell switched suppliers and kept their products world wide. Greenpeace should be targetting Apple here. I hope Apple reacts. Good quality products, with a long lifespan a low environmental impact benefit everyone.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 07:43 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
lewis-hamilton.jpg
Kimi shatters Lewis Hamilton#39;s
Lewis Hamilton Wins Hungarian
Lewis Hamilton award for fast
Lewis Hamilton - McLaren#39;s
Lewis Hamilton disillusioned
Lewis Hamilton
Lewis Hamilton upbeat as
Lewis Hamilton And Nicole
f1 lewis hamilton car.
Lewis Hamilton Photo
Lewis Hamilton
Tags: lewis hamilton , formula
Lewis Hamilton was in trouble
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
space2go
Mar 20, 08:25 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
rxse7en
Oct 12, 06:19 PM
I went ahead and ordered the 24" LCD from Dell. Pretty cool that they use PayPal--I try to pay with everything with cash. Anyway, I have that coupon code for the 30", if anyone wants it just PM me.
B
B
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
rasmasyean
Apr 23, 02:11 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
HiRez
Sep 26, 05:17 AM
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:34 AM
Unchecked in what sense of the word "unchecked?"
Not checked for efficiency or flaws.
Not checked for efficiency or flaws.
Consultant
Apr 20, 05:36 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
chrono1081
Apr 28, 12:28 PM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
pirateRACE
Apr 13, 09:04 AM
As a FC editor I'm excited. I can't wait to see what is in store for the rest of the suite.
If it's not your cup of tea, then keep rocking your current version. Amazing films, TV and web material has been made with it.
If it's not your cup of tea, then keep rocking your current version. Amazing films, TV and web material has been made with it.
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
localoid
Mar 14, 05:17 AM
Somewhat old news, but seemingly germane...
With a sparkle in his eyes, Bill Gates explains the Traveling Wave Reactor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg), a mini-reactor that can use nuclear waste as fuel.
Wonder if Bill had one of these Gilbert sets as a kid?
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2184/gilbertatomicopentrimme.jpg
With a sparkle in his eyes, Bill Gates explains the Traveling Wave Reactor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg), a mini-reactor that can use nuclear waste as fuel.
Wonder if Bill had one of these Gilbert sets as a kid?
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2184/gilbertatomicopentrimme.jpg
milo
Sep 20, 08:16 AM
For some reason I convinved myself that Apple would only permit videos tagged as originating from their store.
No way. That would mean that users couldn't even watch their own home movies. Apple would NEVER do that, it would be a huge conflict with their other selling points.
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
What would they leave out? Didn't they already say it does photo slideshows?
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
That would be the worst idea ever. People on these forums are ALWAYS disappointed, even with products that turn out to be huge sellers for apple. People whine and whine...and then they buy the product anyway.
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
IT IS NOT THE FINAL NAME. It's only a codename, it will ship with a different name.
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
I already have a DVD player. Why the hell would I want to see the price go up even more just to give me redundant technology? Do you complain that your printer doesn't scan documents?
No way. That would mean that users couldn't even watch their own home movies. Apple would NEVER do that, it would be a huge conflict with their other selling points.
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
What would they leave out? Didn't they already say it does photo slideshows?
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
That would be the worst idea ever. People on these forums are ALWAYS disappointed, even with products that turn out to be huge sellers for apple. People whine and whine...and then they buy the product anyway.
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
IT IS NOT THE FINAL NAME. It's only a codename, it will ship with a different name.
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
I already have a DVD player. Why the hell would I want to see the price go up even more just to give me redundant technology? Do you complain that your printer doesn't scan documents?
Therbo
May 2, 09:41 AM
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 18, 11:04 AM
I've never once tethered or hotspotted yet my usage for last month was over 9GB....this is just normal iPhone usage for me, they better not automatically change me to the tiered plan. :mad:
Well did u get the text/email?
Wait hold on.... Sharing food is illegal?
Really?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not... but he didn't say it was illegal necessarily, but it is stealing and wrong, and the restaurant certainly would stop you if they caught you. Did you read the context? Like if you went with a group of friends to a buffet, but only one person paid then that person kept going back through the line getting food for everyone else.
But back to the original topic, I really hope that at&t won't be able to spot a 4.3 tether. I've kept my unlimited all year, and never once tethered. In fact usually I'm under 1gb (but one month I did netflix like crazy and I was over 4gb). But I have been hanging on to this because one day I might need it. And now that day has come, with my wifi iPad 2. That would really suck that now that I finally want to tether, I won't be able to. Now I'll just have been paying at&t tons of cash for no reason...
Well did u get the text/email?
Wait hold on.... Sharing food is illegal?
Really?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not... but he didn't say it was illegal necessarily, but it is stealing and wrong, and the restaurant certainly would stop you if they caught you. Did you read the context? Like if you went with a group of friends to a buffet, but only one person paid then that person kept going back through the line getting food for everyone else.
But back to the original topic, I really hope that at&t won't be able to spot a 4.3 tether. I've kept my unlimited all year, and never once tethered. In fact usually I'm under 1gb (but one month I did netflix like crazy and I was over 4gb). But I have been hanging on to this because one day I might need it. And now that day has come, with my wifi iPad 2. That would really suck that now that I finally want to tether, I won't be able to. Now I'll just have been paying at&t tons of cash for no reason...
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 03:08 PM
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
Mousse
Apr 25, 06:14 PM
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
firestarter
Mar 13, 10:01 AM
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
austin610
Feb 22, 09:44 PM
Surpass? I don't think so. Catching up.... maybe!:D
No comments:
Post a Comment