rdowty
Mar 14, 06:13 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.
RaNdOm
Mar 18, 09:51 AM
So just took a look at my bill and I see that there are two charges on there for 1Kb under "wap.cingular" for the two times that I tested tether on my jailbroken phone using the TetherMe app from Cydia. All other data charges like streaming Pandora or other radio apps just show up at "phone" on my bill. So it seems that they have indeed started breaking out the type of data traffic used to monitor tethering. I don't know if it would then be possible to start masking the tethering as Pandora. I currently stream radio and video on my phone to the tune of 3+Gb a month and haven't tethered other than to test the function.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
And I can't think of a better way to get a whole bunch of children raped by 'chaste' Catholic priests.
And I can't think of a better way to get a whole bunch of children raped by 'chaste' Catholic priests.
awmazz
Mar 12, 03:12 AM
Explosion reported at Fukushima plant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
Oh cr*p. The headline is 'huge explosion'.
I think it's clearly time to start making comparisons with Chernobyl and discussing how widespread the radiation damage is now potentially gong to be rather than praising how Japanese reactors are different to Soviet ones. That huge cloud of smoke is enough to tell anyone expert or not that this is already way beyond just getting backup cooling diesel generators operational again - we're witnessing a massive disaster genuine bona fide China Syndrome meltdown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
Oh cr*p. The headline is 'huge explosion'.
I think it's clearly time to start making comparisons with Chernobyl and discussing how widespread the radiation damage is now potentially gong to be rather than praising how Japanese reactors are different to Soviet ones. That huge cloud of smoke is enough to tell anyone expert or not that this is already way beyond just getting backup cooling diesel generators operational again - we're witnessing a massive disaster genuine bona fide China Syndrome meltdown.
Tymmz
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
and the article says: "...performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
and maybe that's very important for Greenpeace. And I don't even know, if Apple takes back any electronics at all.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
and the article says: "...performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
and maybe that's very important for Greenpeace. And I don't even know, if Apple takes back any electronics at all.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 10:23 AM
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 08:47 AM
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
No, because that is clearly retarded.
No, because that is clearly retarded.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 01:53 PM
Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology.
Yes, how will you stay in business if 16 year olds can undercut you on price and have the same quality?
Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
Does it matter where a carpenter buys his hammer?
Yes, how will you stay in business if 16 year olds can undercut you on price and have the same quality?
Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
Does it matter where a carpenter buys his hammer?
Sydde
Apr 22, 08:50 PM
Atheists often, rightly or wrongly, seem to count agnostics in their number much as Blues is of classified as a part of Jazz (wrongly, IMO).
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
ender78
Sep 26, 04:03 PM
:D Now that's a render farm!!
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
shawnce
Jul 12, 11:44 AM
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:56 AM
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
totoum
Apr 13, 02:32 AM
Oh but it will sync the sound for you
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
Fuentes De Letras.
fuentes de letras. de paquetes
fuentes divertidas 1
fuentes de letras.
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 9, 07:07 AM
I'm not sure why this is front page news. Apple is a little late to the game (no pun) here as devs have already made the iPod the new "game boy". But it's not really the hardware that has done this, but rather inexpensive app prices. I hate to see Apple get sidetracked here. They should just continue to focus on innovating and the devs will come out with apps people want at prices parents and kids can afford.
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
Project
Sep 20, 01:55 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
Its Front Row. Which can play whatever Quicktime can play. Which means it can play avi, wmv etc. Just install the codecs.
Its Front Row. Which can play whatever Quicktime can play. Which means it can play avi, wmv etc. Just install the codecs.
NT1440
Apr 24, 06:37 PM
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
100Teraflops
Apr 6, 08:23 PM
Hi guys,
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
dyler
Oct 7, 06:49 PM
Oh so now we have Android. First it was the Palm Pre that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen, then it was this or that touch screen phone that was going to kill the iPhone and that did not happen. When Android first came out with the G1 that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen and now we have more Android devices killing the iPhone, not going to happen. This is a load of crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. Android is hard to develop for and is at least two years behind Apple at the moment, how is this going to happen? This is the stupidest prediction I have ever heard from people who don't like Apple for some reason that I cannot understand, let's stop predicting which device is going to be King and just see what happens!!! The main reason I say this will not happen is that Android is only being adopted by technophiles and not everyday people, the iPhone is being adopted by apple technophiles and everyday people, it is the everyday people that decide which device is king and they will not adopt Android unless the OS is completely overhauled in a different direction, people like my 63 year old father have an Iphone now and there is no way he would ever want or use an Android based phone. Tech analysts need to think of everyday people when they predict this crap and not techies who hate Apple for some reason or another!!!
GGJstudios
May 2, 09:15 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
coochiekuta
Mar 13, 02:21 PM
surely other forms need to be developed more so their cost can go down but nuclear power i think is very much needed. after an oil spill do you give up on oil? there is risk in most things.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 03:14 PM
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
skunk
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
No comments:
Post a Comment