MacFly123
Oct 7, 06:20 PM
I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.
If it is not, comments like this are exactly what is wrong with this forum.
What does Microsoft has to do with topic?
No sarcasm at all. I know Microsoft wasn't specifically in the topic, but it relates heavily. Apple, Google, and Palm are all going to be big players in the mobile computing world. Microsoft, RIM, and Symbian are all very outdated and behind. I think it is all very interesting. I wasn't alive when the personal computing revolution went down, but this is the same type of revolution.
It is very relevant because it seems like Google is becoming the new Microsoft. There are some big differences though that make me not despise Google, such as how they are pretty open. I rejoice in Microsoft failing because the world and technology is a better place without them hindering innovation and progression with all their illegal proprietary lock-in antics they constantly shove down peoples' throats! :rolleyes: RIP Micro$oft! :p
If it is not, comments like this are exactly what is wrong with this forum.
What does Microsoft has to do with topic?
No sarcasm at all. I know Microsoft wasn't specifically in the topic, but it relates heavily. Apple, Google, and Palm are all going to be big players in the mobile computing world. Microsoft, RIM, and Symbian are all very outdated and behind. I think it is all very interesting. I wasn't alive when the personal computing revolution went down, but this is the same type of revolution.
It is very relevant because it seems like Google is becoming the new Microsoft. There are some big differences though that make me not despise Google, such as how they are pretty open. I rejoice in Microsoft failing because the world and technology is a better place without them hindering innovation and progression with all their illegal proprietary lock-in antics they constantly shove down peoples' throats! :rolleyes: RIP Micro$oft! :p
alex_ant
Oct 8, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
Reach
Apr 13, 02:35 AM
So far so good as far as I'm concerned. Very interested to see the rest of the Studio.
chrono1081
Apr 20, 07:41 PM
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.
You obviously don't work in IT or no anything about how viruses are spread. Windows can get a virus just by being on a network with an infected machine or opening an email in Outlook from someone on an infected machine. I fix these kind of issues for a living and see it all the time. The truth is its insanely easy for viruses to get onto, and hide in Windows. Windows allows the files to completely hide themselves even if hidden and system files are set to show. The only way to see them on an infected machine is to yank the hard drive and plug it into a mac or linux based machine then you can spot hidden infected files if you know where they are located.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
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.
You obviously don't work in IT or no anything about how viruses are spread. Windows can get a virus just by being on a network with an infected machine or opening an email in Outlook from someone on an infected machine. I fix these kind of issues for a living and see it all the time. The truth is its insanely easy for viruses to get onto, and hide in Windows. Windows allows the files to completely hide themselves even if hidden and system files are set to show. The only way to see them on an infected machine is to yank the hard drive and plug it into a mac or linux based machine then you can spot hidden infected files if you know where they are located.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
pkson
Apr 13, 12:05 AM
Anytime FCP is brought up there's a *body part* measuring *stuff*storm about who's "professional" and who's not.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:37 AM
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
AppliedVisual
Oct 19, 11:18 AM
I wonder if one of the Leopard "Top Secrets" is Core Control so we may assign how many cores for each applicaiton we know can use more than one.
That would be nice. Although, I don't think it would be too difficult to write such an app that could be controlled via a dashboard widget. I haven't dug that deep into OSX programming and XCode, but it will definitely be something I'll have to look into doing if Leopard doesn't have the ability and I've got 8 cores to manage.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four Then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and really needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
Same here. Only 6 years ago, I had to have a Pentium workstation with 10 separate systems for rendering. Over the years, those numbers have fluxuated, but now we've come to a whole new way of working. A single Mac Pro with 8GB and the lowest video and HDD option (with the dual-core Woodcrest) can replace 3 of the systems on my render farm and still provide a performance increase. I'm really looking into XServe, but they're rather expensive. The preliminary reviews are making me drool, but that's a lot of money for render nodes. I'm so tempted though - 8-core XServe w/16GB RAM looks like a winner. 4 of those in my rack would render all my 3D faster than I can model and set up the scenes. ...It's only money, right? :D
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able.
Congrats! Hope you have better luck than me.. I had to refuse mine on monday because the box was mangled and crushed. Dell is shipping a new one, but I don't have tracking/delivery info yet. :( But like I said before, I have one already and love the the thing.
That would be nice. Although, I don't think it would be too difficult to write such an app that could be controlled via a dashboard widget. I haven't dug that deep into OSX programming and XCode, but it will definitely be something I'll have to look into doing if Leopard doesn't have the ability and I've got 8 cores to manage.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four Then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and really needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
Same here. Only 6 years ago, I had to have a Pentium workstation with 10 separate systems for rendering. Over the years, those numbers have fluxuated, but now we've come to a whole new way of working. A single Mac Pro with 8GB and the lowest video and HDD option (with the dual-core Woodcrest) can replace 3 of the systems on my render farm and still provide a performance increase. I'm really looking into XServe, but they're rather expensive. The preliminary reviews are making me drool, but that's a lot of money for render nodes. I'm so tempted though - 8-core XServe w/16GB RAM looks like a winner. 4 of those in my rack would render all my 3D faster than I can model and set up the scenes. ...It's only money, right? :D
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able.
Congrats! Hope you have better luck than me.. I had to refuse mine on monday because the box was mangled and crushed. Dell is shipping a new one, but I don't have tracking/delivery info yet. :( But like I said before, I have one already and love the the thing.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 10:47 AM
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
milo
Jul 13, 11:17 AM
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
Not necessarily. They could also just put the conroe in the base model with the same form factor, although they probably wouldn't be able to get it as cheap. I don't really care if they go with the mini form factor or not as long as the price is low enough.
the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.
(snip)
apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.
That's a $300 difference in list price. Even if apple pays half of that, it's a significant amount, not to mention that the difference goes higher the more ram you buy.
Sure, it makes sense for companies to offer a single woodcrest config IN ADDITION to conroe configs. It mostly makes sense for users who want to add the second chip themselves in the future. But all those companies also will sell conroe configs, and they will be cheaper. It just doesn't make sense to sell single woodcrest as a substitute for conroe, apple would likely be the only company doing that.
And the cube failed because it was simply outrageously overpriced (I would NOT consider it "powermac" by any stretch of the imagination, but it still cost almost as much as the full towers). They brought it back as the mini which has sold very well and demonstrated that people DO want smaller, cheaper alternatives.
Not necessarily. They could also just put the conroe in the base model with the same form factor, although they probably wouldn't be able to get it as cheap. I don't really care if they go with the mini form factor or not as long as the price is low enough.
the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.
(snip)
apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.
That's a $300 difference in list price. Even if apple pays half of that, it's a significant amount, not to mention that the difference goes higher the more ram you buy.
Sure, it makes sense for companies to offer a single woodcrest config IN ADDITION to conroe configs. It mostly makes sense for users who want to add the second chip themselves in the future. But all those companies also will sell conroe configs, and they will be cheaper. It just doesn't make sense to sell single woodcrest as a substitute for conroe, apple would likely be the only company doing that.
And the cube failed because it was simply outrageously overpriced (I would NOT consider it "powermac" by any stretch of the imagination, but it still cost almost as much as the full towers). They brought it back as the mini which has sold very well and demonstrated that people DO want smaller, cheaper alternatives.
GGJstudios
May 3, 05:30 PM
You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Sydde
Mar 25, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=CaoCao;12258425]Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public/QUOTE]
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 03:43 PM
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
Probably, but it's speculation.
Probably, but it's speculation.
chaoticbear
Apr 15, 09:39 AM
Weird. That's the beauty of an SMB/CIFS NAS. It can run on Linux with ext3 and Samba and you'd think it was Windows/NTFS. Supporting >4GB is just a matter of getting the right format that the NAS understands, because it will translate that to a generic SMB call.
My current NAS is an HP Mediasmart running Windows Home Server, but I also used the Apple Time Capsule before that. Neither had any trouble with the issues you raise.
And dropbox has been a godsend for me. Drop a file in there and once synced it's accessible at full speeds from all of my three Macs (under OSX or Windows) my PC and even my iDevices.
B
Well, to be fair, this is not a high-end box we're dealing with. We bought a router that supports SMB via a USB external HDD. The formatting pains were when we thought we were ever going to disconnect the drive and take it anywhere with us, or plug it directly into a computer for transferring large chunks of data. We don't ever do either of those, so we basically just went through all that work for nothing. The OP asked for things they might not like, maybe they'll run into this one useless headache at some point in their future :p
My current NAS is an HP Mediasmart running Windows Home Server, but I also used the Apple Time Capsule before that. Neither had any trouble with the issues you raise.
And dropbox has been a godsend for me. Drop a file in there and once synced it's accessible at full speeds from all of my three Macs (under OSX or Windows) my PC and even my iDevices.
B
Well, to be fair, this is not a high-end box we're dealing with. We bought a router that supports SMB via a USB external HDD. The formatting pains were when we thought we were ever going to disconnect the drive and take it anywhere with us, or plug it directly into a computer for transferring large chunks of data. We don't ever do either of those, so we basically just went through all that work for nothing. The OP asked for things they might not like, maybe they'll run into this one useless headache at some point in their future :p
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 03:56 PM
is this iTV thingee going to have wireless router function? then it replaces airport express. if not, then no.yes it will. Probably 802.11n. It will also have a USB port. They could do a lot of interesting things with the USB port. You could connect your or a friend's iPod and gain access to all the content on the iPod. You could connect a printer like the Airport Express, or what I hope most of all is NAS. Imagine being able to connect a USB drive and have a file server for your whole house, anything in the movies, music, or photos folders can be played by iTV.
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
slinger1968
Nov 2, 06:28 PM
I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.I wouldn't expect the Clovertowns to be a BTO option right away. Sure they are pin compatable but Apple will need to make sure that they can cool these chips well enough to be very stable. Maybe Apple has already been testing the clovertown config, but we haven't heard any rumors and who knows if they need additional cooling.
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.
handsome pete
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Your quick denigration of Adobe shows how much you don't know about the industry. And as a whole, Final Cut still plays second fiddle to Avid.
As a Final Cut editor the prospects of this new version are very promising, but I'm still withholding judgment until some more info comes out and I can get my hands on it.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Your quick denigration of Adobe shows how much you don't know about the industry. And as a whole, Final Cut still plays second fiddle to Avid.
As a Final Cut editor the prospects of this new version are very promising, but I'm still withholding judgment until some more info comes out and I can get my hands on it.
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
quot;updo hair stylesquot;, quot;easy
Doctor Q
Apr 8, 10:50 PM
Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".
Were they pushed or pulled?
Were they pushed or pulled?
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:47 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
ksegel
Nov 10, 07:07 PM
I agree that it is mostly AT&T, don't get me wrong I love my iphone 3gs, but i have heard that there were issues for many people who were using 3gs and upgraded their phones, some had more dropped calls (which i seem to be having) and some had more serious problems.
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/ios_4_update_problems_plague_iphone_3g_users
I would love to get a I phone 4 and I'd love it if half the people who were using Iphones were on verizon so AT&T may actually be able to handle the usage on its network.
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/ios_4_update_problems_plague_iphone_3g_users
I would love to get a I phone 4 and I'd love it if half the people who were using Iphones were on verizon so AT&T may actually be able to handle the usage on its network.
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
Chris Blount
Mar 18, 08:19 AM
I'm happy to see some of the responsible replies here. I also say bravo to AT&T. It seems like whenever a thread like this comes up, it brings out the MacRumors den of thieves who like to circumvent data plans and steal data that the rest of us our paying for.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
whoami
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
Stella
Feb 20, 09:22 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )