Multimedia
Sep 26, 12:49 PM
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :D
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
adamfilip
Jul 12, 08:44 AM
i think all the new mac pro will be quad core xeons (2 chips) just range in frequency.
AlBDamned
Aug 30, 11:38 AM
From Cult of Mac's blog (http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/) on the issue:
I have now had the chance to read through Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics," and there are a few things that should be clarified about where Apple ranks.
First of all, the article I linked this morning claimed that Apple and Lenovo were at the bottom of the charts. Well, that's not true. Lenovo scored an appalling 1.3 out of 10 while Apple pulled a marginally more successful 2.7 out of 10. In between were Motorola and Acer.
The criticisms of Apple are fair, I would say, though I think there's some nuance to what HP is doing with recycling that tends to make it look unfavorably better than others. Why? Ink cartridges and printers. HP has a lot more to take back than any other company, so their commitment to percentage of sales taken back is actually a possibility.
Given that Apple actually offers free computer recycling with the purchase of a computer, something that Dell does but HP does not, it's odd to say they're doing less to keep computers out of the waste stream. On the other hand, Apple has no takeback goals, so it really does balance out.
The other criticisms of Apple are on target, however. The company is secretive, and that meets they tend to be secretive about their environmental planning as well. They have a regulated substances list, but it isn't public. They're committed to eliminating PVCs, but won't say when. Ditto for BFRs.
It's not necessarily that Apple's environmental record is legitimately bad, but they do a very poor job of informing their customers about their environmental efforts. Silence is suspicious here, folks.
I have now had the chance to read through Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics," and there are a few things that should be clarified about where Apple ranks.
First of all, the article I linked this morning claimed that Apple and Lenovo were at the bottom of the charts. Well, that's not true. Lenovo scored an appalling 1.3 out of 10 while Apple pulled a marginally more successful 2.7 out of 10. In between were Motorola and Acer.
The criticisms of Apple are fair, I would say, though I think there's some nuance to what HP is doing with recycling that tends to make it look unfavorably better than others. Why? Ink cartridges and printers. HP has a lot more to take back than any other company, so their commitment to percentage of sales taken back is actually a possibility.
Given that Apple actually offers free computer recycling with the purchase of a computer, something that Dell does but HP does not, it's odd to say they're doing less to keep computers out of the waste stream. On the other hand, Apple has no takeback goals, so it really does balance out.
The other criticisms of Apple are on target, however. The company is secretive, and that meets they tend to be secretive about their environmental planning as well. They have a regulated substances list, but it isn't public. They're committed to eliminating PVCs, but won't say when. Ditto for BFRs.
It's not necessarily that Apple's environmental record is legitimately bad, but they do a very poor job of informing their customers about their environmental efforts. Silence is suspicious here, folks.
kas23
May 5, 11:04 AM
I get about 0-1 dropped calls per day. That said, only about half of my incoming calls get through. The rest go straight to voicemail (so I am told).
Rt&Dzine
Mar 12, 11:27 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
radio893fm
Aug 30, 12:49 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:02 PM
I guess all this honour killing pretty much explains the original theory how freedom of women has been affected
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
The freedom of women is an archaic subject. It is established that women generally had less rights as we go back in time.
It is worth noting that it was during the Islamic empire that the first big scientific advances in medicine were made.
Things were far worse before Islam.
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
The freedom of women is an archaic subject. It is established that women generally had less rights as we go back in time.
It is worth noting that it was during the Islamic empire that the first big scientific advances in medicine were made.
Things were far worse before Islam.
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.
Peterkro
Mar 14, 06:18 PM
Number 2 reactor explosion,possible containment vessel rupture (I hope not) doesn't sound good.
(it appears a expansion tank blew as it's directly connected to the main vessel this is not good)
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-Island
(it appears a expansion tank blew as it's directly connected to the main vessel this is not good)
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-Island
takao
Mar 14, 12:21 PM
At the risk of bumping this up to PRSI, let me just say that I thought 'saving face' was a thing of the past.
in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic: like for certain swiss/german/european power plants where if one reactors cooling fails, the emergency generators are actually to be powered by the _other_ nuclear reactors on site ...
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic: like for certain swiss/german/european power plants where if one reactors cooling fails, the emergency generators are actually to be powered by the _other_ nuclear reactors on site ...
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Povilas
Oct 7, 02:51 PM
OK, they leave and go where exactly? I can't see it happening. Some bigger developers will offer apps also for other devices, but I think no one is thinking about leaving.
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:18 PM
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
GenesisST
Oct 7, 12:18 PM
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:34 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
T-Bone
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:47 AM
Oh, let these people have their fun. The market will prove them wrong. Each era begins with such folk who are good at the previous era's technology. They never see the turning points, but they still get swept up in history.
Chucho
May 17, 12:41 AM
I was having ~50% calls dropped with my iPhone. Bought a Nexus One, popped in the AT&T sim card from the iPhone and it has worked flawlessly.
beret9987
Nov 12, 03:09 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
paolo-
Apr 6, 11:02 PM
I think your experience with the operating system will greatly depend on how you understand the computer and how open you are to a new interpretation of it.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
dwd3885
Apr 15, 09:23 AM
no matter how you feel, people shouldn't be bullied.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:10 PM
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
Thanatoast
Sep 20, 03:16 PM
Why in the world are so many people complaining about the lack of a DVR and DVD?
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front of entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
As for the DVD player issue, Apple wants you to buy your movies from them. They neither need nor want a DVD player on this device. If you already own a movie on DVD, rip it for goodness' sake. Large collections of DVD's look impressive, but really all they do is take up space.
My conclusion: drop the cable + Tivo - save money, time and brain cells. Only watch the content you're willing to pay for rather than letting Hollywood/Madison Ave shove whatever they wish down your throat while you slowly vegetate.
/soapbox
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front of entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
As for the DVD player issue, Apple wants you to buy your movies from them. They neither need nor want a DVD player on this device. If you already own a movie on DVD, rip it for goodness' sake. Large collections of DVD's look impressive, but really all they do is take up space.
My conclusion: drop the cable + Tivo - save money, time and brain cells. Only watch the content you're willing to pay for rather than letting Hollywood/Madison Ave shove whatever they wish down your throat while you slowly vegetate.
/soapbox
No comments:
Post a Comment