citizenzen
Apr 23, 10:28 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
MorphingDragon
May 2, 09:33 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.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
redkamel
Apr 13, 01:16 AM
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by benixau
Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Efron
Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens
For Vanessa Hudgens and
vanessa hudgens and zac efron
Vanessa Hudgens in Sucker
HollywoodNews.com: While it started to seem that Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens were at least in contact again, it now seems that things are getting cozy
Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens
vanessa hudgens 2011 pictures
Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Efron
Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Efron
Zac Efron Leaving Vanessa
Vanessa Hudgens And Zac Efron
2011 - Venessa
Why Did Zac Efron And Vanessa
zac efron and vanessa hudgens
blackburn
Apr 9, 04:29 PM
Real gamers won't use apple gear (for gaming at least). I don't really like the online game craze. You can't borrow games from friends or even trade them (yeah more profit for the industry).
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
space2go
Mar 20, 07:12 PM
Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer.
Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong ;).
Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.
Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.
Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong ;).
Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.
Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.
javajedi
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:06 AM
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:09 AM
You have completely missed the point.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 12:59 PM
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
e-coli
Apr 20, 06:54 PM
No LTE = no iPhone 5 for me. Thanks for saving me some money!
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 04:43 AM
My only concern at this point is every iMovie user now thinking they can be a pro editor with no training and very little cost. Even a 10 year old kid will be using FCP. This is going to affect the editing job market and make editors a dime a dozen. Sure talent still matters but it is going to be harder for companies to sift through 5000 demo reels trying to find that talent. Apple has pretty much turned editing into Wal-Mart.
Wow. I don't know if it's possible to be more condescending.
Wow. I don't know if it's possible to be more condescending.
dukebound85
Mar 13, 12:31 PM
NIMBY. I'm okay with nuclear power as long as it's far far away from where I live. Of course, it's not like my town is prone to natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_earthquake) disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hugo) or anything.
Sorry to burst your buble but Charleston SC has operating reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
Note for ships marked with refit: Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635) was converted into a training platform — Moored Training Ship (MTS-635). Sam Rayburn arrived for conversion on 1 February 1986, and on 29 July 1989 the first Moored Training Ship achieved initial criticality. Modifications included special mooring arrangements including a mechanism to absorb power generated by the main propulsion shaft. Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) was converted to the second Moored Training Ship (MTS-2 / MTS-626) in 1993. The Moored Training Ship Site is located at Naval Weapons Station Charleston in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Sam Rayburn is scheduled to operate as an MTS until 2014 while undergoing shipyard availabilities at four year intervals.
Sorry to burst your buble but Charleston SC has operating reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
Note for ships marked with refit: Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635) was converted into a training platform — Moored Training Ship (MTS-635). Sam Rayburn arrived for conversion on 1 February 1986, and on 29 July 1989 the first Moored Training Ship achieved initial criticality. Modifications included special mooring arrangements including a mechanism to absorb power generated by the main propulsion shaft. Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) was converted to the second Moored Training Ship (MTS-2 / MTS-626) in 1993. The Moored Training Ship Site is located at Naval Weapons Station Charleston in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Sam Rayburn is scheduled to operate as an MTS until 2014 while undergoing shipyard availabilities at four year intervals.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 01:53 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
r0k
Apr 14, 02:57 PM
Stompy, a few posts back somebody mentioned that the OP was later banned. That might explain why he hasn't come back. I am a fairly recent switcher. In fact I can honestly say I switch daily.
I switch whenever I manage to unchain myself from the Windows oars at the office and sit down in front of my lag-free, freeze-free, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free, pleasant to use, easy to look at Mac.
There has been some good discussion here and there has been some wasted discussion. I think it's worth keeping this thread around for the sake of the good stuff. One of the things I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
I don't have an ignore list for MR, but it's threads like this that draw out the kind of posts that make it fairly easy to put one together if someone is so inclined.
One thing that I stumbled across today was this...
One of my earliest Macs was a lowly Quadra 605. I was gonna put a picture of the 605 in here when I stumbled across this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg/220px-Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/795f5356-a523-8089-dc4c-13112bb4c05d/1/OriginalPng?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Desktops/Inspiron_Desktops/inspiron_570/hero/desktop-inspiron-570-left-piano-black-hero-504x350.png
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
I switch whenever I manage to unchain myself from the Windows oars at the office and sit down in front of my lag-free, freeze-free, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free, pleasant to use, easy to look at Mac.
There has been some good discussion here and there has been some wasted discussion. I think it's worth keeping this thread around for the sake of the good stuff. One of the things I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
I don't have an ignore list for MR, but it's threads like this that draw out the kind of posts that make it fairly easy to put one together if someone is so inclined.
One thing that I stumbled across today was this...
One of my earliest Macs was a lowly Quadra 605. I was gonna put a picture of the 605 in here when I stumbled across this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg/220px-Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/795f5356-a523-8089-dc4c-13112bb4c05d/1/OriginalPng?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Desktops/Inspiron_Desktops/inspiron_570/hero/desktop-inspiron-570-left-piano-black-hero-504x350.png
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
I see no reason why Apple won't have a low cost tablet when competitors drop their prices. They are already very aggressive on pricing, and I think we see in the iPod market their approach to pricing these sorts of devices: You can step up from $49 (in the U.S.) all the way to an iPod touch. Hard to beat Apple on pricing, and this is ten years after the iPod was introduced.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:57 PM
And you can swap 'em right in. If Apple doesn't release a Mac Pro upgrade with some other goodies (I'm personally hoping for DDR2, as the 8GB of goofy RAM in my Mac Pro cost me an arm and a leg.) I'm just going to buy a couple quad core chips and toss them in my machine.
caity13cait
Sep 23, 07:31 AM
I've noticed a lot of people going on about the iTV being 802.11n compatible. What I want to know is how is this going to be incorporated into wireless networks that are currently supporting 802.11 a,b & g. If it is going to be 802.11n then we are all going to need new routers to accommodate the higher transfer rate, and what about all those individuals possessing an imac / mac mini with built in wireless with no way to upgrade to the new standard without getting new machines or additional hardware. its going to be an expensive upgrade on top of the $299 price for an iTV
IT is backwards compatable. Unfortunately if the iTv requires it for larger hd files in the future it may be a problem. I am not sure how far along Apple is on 802.11n but it seems to me if they are going to require it they better start putting it in computers soon. I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
IT is backwards compatable. Unfortunately if the iTv requires it for larger hd files in the future it may be a problem. I am not sure how far along Apple is on 802.11n but it seems to me if they are going to require it they better start putting it in computers soon. I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
puma1552
Mar 12, 03:43 AM
Oh cr*p. The headline is 'huge explosion'.
I think it's clearly time to start making comparisons with Chernobyl and discussing how widespread the radiation damage is now potentially gong to be rather than praising how Japanese reactors are different to Soviet ones. That huge cloud of smoke is enough to tell anyone expert or not that this is already way beyond just getting backup cooling diesel generators operational again - we're witnessing a massive disaster genuine bona fide China Syndrome meltdown.
Why is this Chernobyl?
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
I think it's clearly time to start making comparisons with Chernobyl and discussing how widespread the radiation damage is now potentially gong to be rather than praising how Japanese reactors are different to Soviet ones. That huge cloud of smoke is enough to tell anyone expert or not that this is already way beyond just getting backup cooling diesel generators operational again - we're witnessing a massive disaster genuine bona fide China Syndrome meltdown.
Why is this Chernobyl?
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 12:25 PM
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 10:45 AM
I just switched. Like, a week ago.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
blackstarliner
Sep 20, 12:00 PM
It will be perfect for me. I need a video airport express type machine to connect to a big old projector in a cupboard that I want to feed dvd to wirelessly from the mini.
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 08:49 PM
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
Dude. If this is your family, you need to be watching less TV and getting outside more. Or at least stay inside and play board-games with the kids. It's much more fun than vegging out on the couch.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
Dude. If this is your family, you need to be watching less TV and getting outside more. Or at least stay inside and play board-games with the kids. It's much more fun than vegging out on the couch.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
