emotion
Sep 21, 01:36 PM
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
ct2k7
Apr 24, 10:13 PM
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 02:54 PM
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
Yet they are still dependent on coal, oil and nuclear. Green energy isn't efficient enough. Also, if you didn't know, Denmark has one of the highest household electricity prices in the world.
NO nuclear.
Currently, that is same as saying no to electricity.
Yet they are still dependent on coal, oil and nuclear. Green energy isn't efficient enough. Also, if you didn't know, Denmark has one of the highest household electricity prices in the world.
NO nuclear.
Currently, that is same as saying no to electricity.
more...
Rocketman
Mar 18, 12:25 PM
This is a simple and cheap way for AT&T to address the most abusive users in a way they give themselves the choice.
Why now? It may have iOS 4.3 as a small factor, but the larger factor is uptake on (fully paid) iPad data plans is so brisk and invites more legitimate use of the network, they need to create network capacity fast, before they install more backhaul or towers. This is that way.
A small percentage of users really are using the bulk of variable bandwidth.
Rocketman
Why now? It may have iOS 4.3 as a small factor, but the larger factor is uptake on (fully paid) iPad data plans is so brisk and invites more legitimate use of the network, they need to create network capacity fast, before they install more backhaul or towers. This is that way.
A small percentage of users really are using the bulk of variable bandwidth.
Rocketman
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:47 PM
It's a homonym... :)
I like a joke. So thanks, skunk. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed. Whatever it was, it wasn't a punchline.
I like a joke. So thanks, skunk. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed. Whatever it was, it wasn't a punchline.
more...
sbarton
Jul 13, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
more...
of Our Lord
more...
The Transfiguration of our
more...
of Our Lord
of Our Lord,
of Our Lord
of Our Lord,
Transfiguration of Our Lord Russian Orthodox Church. In Ninilchik, Alaska. We could not get inside, but the little church was beautiful to see.
The Transfiguration of our Lord. August 6. This feast commemorates the manifestation of Christ#39;s glory as recorded by St. Matthew.
more...
The Transfiguration of Our
more...
Transfiguration of Our Lord
more...
Transfiguration of Our Lord
more...
Our Lord, what Pope Saint
more...
Holy Transfiguration of our
more...
more...
more...
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
more...
Don't panic
Mar 15, 08:30 AM
Oh well...Japan is history...
Time to start relocating the population and all their assets to Afghanistan. Didn't we find some ancient Buddhas there which the Taliban blew up? Well, we now declare that The Holy Buddha Land of the Japs! That MUST be were they originated from! They can even rebuild the nuclear reactors there too since no one gives a crap about that environment evidently. :p
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
are you trying to be funny?
because:
a) you are not
b) it seems quite inappropriate
and if you are not. wow.
Time to start relocating the population and all their assets to Afghanistan. Didn't we find some ancient Buddhas there which the Taliban blew up? Well, we now declare that The Holy Buddha Land of the Japs! That MUST be were they originated from! They can even rebuild the nuclear reactors there too since no one gives a crap about that environment evidently. :p
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
are you trying to be funny?
because:
a) you are not
b) it seems quite inappropriate
and if you are not. wow.
more...
yg17
Mar 11, 08:53 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
more...
ddtlm
Oct 13, 02:27 PM
Sherman:
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
ShavenYak
Sep 20, 01:19 PM
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
illegalprelude
Sep 20, 04:06 AM
This indeed makes a nice add on to the Soon Blue-Ray player and the home theater setup but this will never replace a tivo. The amount of things I can do with my Tivo, the fact that im always wirelessly streaming media from it to my computer and the fact that my Tivo can have slide shows and play my music like the iTV says alot. Again, it will be a nice add on if it dosent limit you to just iTunes downloads but never will it replace my trusty Tivo
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Sheesh, where does the OSX 10.2 developer tools CD install gcc to, or under what name? The older dev tools gave me a compiler. Grumble.
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
Lacero
Mar 20, 09:59 PM
Apple will need to add a few extra Xserves to add DRM to the files before it uploads it to the end user. More bandwidth and processing power required to circumvent this hack. Or, iTMS would require post authentication to authorize the purchase or the user account gets suspended.
more...
Stage
Mar 18, 06:49 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
more...
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
more...
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 08:51 PM
Is it possible to like build a "Great Wall of China" arround Japan's tsunami areas?
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!
What if like you had this wall arround Japan and a highway on top instead of a walkway. Of course, you don't need to block barbarians so you can have ramps and tunnel-ramps up to the highway. I don't think this would increase trade costs that much because it doesn't take that much time and gas to go up a ramp and go to the next exit to go back down.
I mean, imagine what kind of destruction that would save. I mean, if it was a major city or something instead of what appears to be "suburbs", that would be a really big blow to Japan.
The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.
(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)
Let's put it this way. Japan's economy is nothing to scoff at. It contains prolly the most concentrated world economic influence footprint. So whatever "nuclear damage" had happened will most likely be considered "worth it" for what they have accomplished. Think about this next time you go to buy electronics, a car, play video games, the movies...amoung many other things.
The "better solution" would involve learning from this and design BETTER nucler power plants. Maybe they didn't think this type of tsunami would even hit them, but now they know. And now the US knows too and can upgrade those 23 plants or whatever. I mean, one idea I can think of is having some form of barren/mountainous areas house nuclear plants and have superconduction deliver electricity to far places and such. I mean, you can't expect to dig holes everywhere and expect reliable geothermal energy. Nuclear is the MOST powerful and versatile fuel we know of, and you can even in on a boat for christs sakes. How much eveidence do the "environmentalists" need to see this? :rolleyes:
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!
What if like you had this wall arround Japan and a highway on top instead of a walkway. Of course, you don't need to block barbarians so you can have ramps and tunnel-ramps up to the highway. I don't think this would increase trade costs that much because it doesn't take that much time and gas to go up a ramp and go to the next exit to go back down.
I mean, imagine what kind of destruction that would save. I mean, if it was a major city or something instead of what appears to be "suburbs", that would be a really big blow to Japan.
The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.
(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)
Let's put it this way. Japan's economy is nothing to scoff at. It contains prolly the most concentrated world economic influence footprint. So whatever "nuclear damage" had happened will most likely be considered "worth it" for what they have accomplished. Think about this next time you go to buy electronics, a car, play video games, the movies...amoung many other things.
The "better solution" would involve learning from this and design BETTER nucler power plants. Maybe they didn't think this type of tsunami would even hit them, but now they know. And now the US knows too and can upgrade those 23 plants or whatever. I mean, one idea I can think of is having some form of barren/mountainous areas house nuclear plants and have superconduction deliver electricity to far places and such. I mean, you can't expect to dig holes everywhere and expect reliable geothermal energy. Nuclear is the MOST powerful and versatile fuel we know of, and you can even in on a boat for christs sakes. How much eveidence do the "environmentalists" need to see this? :rolleyes:
more...
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:56 PM
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
more...
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
more...
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:20 PM
I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
more...
*LTD*
Apr 10, 11:22 AM
Epic is garbage and their engine is garbage.
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
dduff617
Sep 20, 01:31 AM
given what i know of the device, including it's form factor, i am skeptical about the report the it contains a hard drive.
babyj
Sep 21, 12:37 PM
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:51 PM
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
more...