MacinDoc
Oct 26, 12:22 AM
Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:39 PM
Sorry to burst your buble but Charleston SC has operating reactors
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
AidenShaw
Sep 29, 07:34 AM
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
But the wrong answer, unfortunately.
MacsAttack's post about slightly higher latency as you add FB-DIMMs is correct.
One FB-DIMM per channel is fastest, two per channel is slower, three per channel is even slower, and four per channel is slowest. The FB-DIMMs on a chain are in kind of a daisy-chain.
The effect is small, as MacsAttack notes, and not important most of the time. You need a carefully crafted memory benchmark to see the effect clearly.
But the wrong answer, unfortunately.
MacsAttack's post about slightly higher latency as you add FB-DIMMs is correct.
One FB-DIMM per channel is fastest, two per channel is slower, three per channel is even slower, and four per channel is slowest. The FB-DIMMs on a chain are in kind of a daisy-chain.
The effect is small, as MacsAttack notes, and not important most of the time. You need a carefully crafted memory benchmark to see the effect clearly.
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
appleguy123
Apr 24, 09:47 AM
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
firestarter
Mar 15, 08:21 PM
True, many European civil nuclear programs (France in particular comes to mind) were nationalistic ventures perhaps more than anything. I wonder how the politics will play out in Germany.
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:19 PM
jiggy:
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
Sydde
Mar 12, 01:02 PM
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time?
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:12 PM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
Apple doesn't care what you plug into the 30 pin adapter. Go here (http://www.itechnews.net/tag/iphone-controller/) to see all kinds of button-rich controllers for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Some plug into the connector and some operate the game over wifi, and one allows both methods. Before commenting, let Google be your friend. :)
Apple doesn't care what you plug into the 30 pin adapter. Go here (http://www.itechnews.net/tag/iphone-controller/) to see all kinds of button-rich controllers for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Some plug into the connector and some operate the game over wifi, and one allows both methods. Before commenting, let Google be your friend. :)
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
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).
GGJstudios
May 3, 08:09 PM
I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes.
You're making a huge assumption that the people who vote on posts are the same people who are posting in a thread. The post voting feature is new and there is no way to know who is using it. People who read the thread can vote, even if they don't post. Personally, I think voting on posts is a waste of time, since you have no idea who votes or why. There have been 240+ posts in this thread, and over 21,900 views, any number of which could be voting on posts. You do the math.
The William amp; Kate Wedding
Prince William Kate Middleton
Royal Wedding: William and
prince william kate middleton
Prince William - Kate
prince william kate middleton
Prince William Kate Middleton
You're making a huge assumption that the people who vote on posts are the same people who are posting in a thread. The post voting feature is new and there is no way to know who is using it. People who read the thread can vote, even if they don't post. Personally, I think voting on posts is a waste of time, since you have no idea who votes or why. There have been 240+ posts in this thread, and over 21,900 views, any number of which could be voting on posts. You do the math.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
gugy
Jul 12, 01:38 AM
The new Powermac or Pro Mac, seems to be a nice machine. It will be interesting to see how much faster than the quad G5.
The big question is.
Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?
Adobe apps are not universal, i doubt that the new Pro Macs will be faster than the current Quad G5 using these apps. Plus, it seems scary to jump on rev. A for this machine.
Everyday, I feel safer for buying my Quad G5 last October and wait for Rev. B for the Pro Mac Intel. I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.
The big question is.
Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?
Adobe apps are not universal, i doubt that the new Pro Macs will be faster than the current Quad G5 using these apps. Plus, it seems scary to jump on rev. A for this machine.
Everyday, I feel safer for buying my Quad G5 last October and wait for Rev. B for the Pro Mac Intel. I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.
Rend It
Aug 29, 02:14 PM
But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
That's what particulate filters are for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter
Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.
That's what particulate filters are for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter
Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.
milo
Jul 13, 09:24 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:07 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
nagromme
Mar 18, 04:11 PM
I have no problem with people using this, as long as people don't use it for piracy. Easier methods exist for pirating music.
The record labels will have SOME problem with this, but--like CDs--you have to BUY the music first. That's not like people signing up for one month of Napster and stealing non-stop.
Apple will have a bigger problem with this--it was tough enough for them to convince the record industry to allow downloading at all, and they'll be extra sure to defend their system now that it's successful.
And it sounds easy for Apple to fix with a future iTunes update:
1) First, force iTunes to identify itself more strictly when connecting to the store.
2) Assuming that crackers keep finding ways to spoof the iTunes app anyway... send the songs to Akamai and to the iTunes app already encrypted. NOT with the account-specific DRM, just with standard 128-bit encryption, the SAME encryption for everyone. Only iTunes, not 3rd-party apps, would have the key to decrypt those files (and add the individual DRM).
3) If the crackers manage to extract the universal key from the iTunes app, Apple need only change the key every so often to interfere. Either as part of iTunes updates, and/or by obtaining a new key online so there's one more process crackers would have to spoof.
Thinking out loud. Anyway, one way or another, I imagine this is short-lived.
The existing, easy, legal method for stripping DRM--burning to CD--is here to stay. And you lose no quality. When you re-import, you ALSO lose no quality, as long as you can spare the HD space and use Apple Lossless etc. Looking at the long-term, HD space is getting cheap.
The record labels will have SOME problem with this, but--like CDs--you have to BUY the music first. That's not like people signing up for one month of Napster and stealing non-stop.
Apple will have a bigger problem with this--it was tough enough for them to convince the record industry to allow downloading at all, and they'll be extra sure to defend their system now that it's successful.
And it sounds easy for Apple to fix with a future iTunes update:
1) First, force iTunes to identify itself more strictly when connecting to the store.
2) Assuming that crackers keep finding ways to spoof the iTunes app anyway... send the songs to Akamai and to the iTunes app already encrypted. NOT with the account-specific DRM, just with standard 128-bit encryption, the SAME encryption for everyone. Only iTunes, not 3rd-party apps, would have the key to decrypt those files (and add the individual DRM).
3) If the crackers manage to extract the universal key from the iTunes app, Apple need only change the key every so often to interfere. Either as part of iTunes updates, and/or by obtaining a new key online so there's one more process crackers would have to spoof.
Thinking out loud. Anyway, one way or another, I imagine this is short-lived.
The existing, easy, legal method for stripping DRM--burning to CD--is here to stay. And you lose no quality. When you re-import, you ALSO lose no quality, as long as you can spare the HD space and use Apple Lossless etc. Looking at the long-term, HD space is getting cheap.
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 07:24 PM
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 05:19 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
marmotmammal
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
A lot of speculation on this thread. I realize we're all impatient for more info. Apple said FCP X is a rewrite from the ground up. When that happens, it's a like a newborn, got to nurture it.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
puma1552
Mar 15, 10:10 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
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
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
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
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
jaseone
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
I wish people would understand that this program is mainly created so that people who use Linux (don't know if you have heard of it, it has a larger market share than Mac OS X if I remember right :rolleyes: ) can listen to the music which they have purchased.
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
No comments:
Post a Comment