Peterkro
Mar 14, 12:01 PM
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
more...
EricNau
Sep 20, 01:07 AM
I didn't notice any TV inputs on the prototype, so unless Apple changes the design significantly and adds major features not discussed at the event, DVR is not a possibility (as far as this device is concerned).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
kugino
Sep 20, 02:18 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. :)
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
johnnyturbouk
Apr 9, 04:32 PM
i love basic gaming on my iphone/ipad
byt nintendo really pushed the boundaries with the wii..
byt nintendo really pushed the boundaries with the wii..
leekohler
Mar 25, 11:56 AM
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
more...
Mikael
Jul 12, 05:35 PM
I find this whole discussion slightly amusing, mostly because of the apparent need to draw a distinction between "professional" and "consumer" based on slight clock frequency differences. To me, a professional platform is defined by its configurability and flexibility. A professional platform is simply one that can be configured to fit the customers every need. Although CPU performance is important, it's hardly what I'd call the defining factor of wether a system is to be regarded as "pro" or not.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:12 PM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Homosexuality is a property that Lee has, but he's not his homosexuality. I have Cerebral Palsy. But I'm not identical with it. I'm not even identical to it. The point is that each person differs from each property he has.
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Homosexuality is a property that Lee has, but he's not his homosexuality. I have Cerebral Palsy. But I'm not identical with it. I'm not even identical to it. The point is that each person differs from each property he has.
more...
pmz
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
Enjoy Greedy corporate thieves who break the law because they're big enough to do so, emptying your wallet.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
Grow up.
Enjoy Greedy corporate thieves who break the law because they're big enough to do so, emptying your wallet.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
more...
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 11:59 AM
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality?
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
more...
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
more...
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:07 PM
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
Again, I didn't say that. But I thank you for being ignorant to my comments to your quotations made, from incomplete sources, showing your complete lack in want to participate.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
Except this doesn't work, since a sane Muslim man would not revolt.
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
The law is only accountable for Muslims.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
:rolleyes:
Again, I didn't say that. But I thank you for being ignorant to my comments to your quotations made, from incomplete sources, showing your complete lack in want to participate.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
Except this doesn't work, since a sane Muslim man would not revolt.
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
The law is only accountable for Muslims.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
:rolleyes:
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 25, 10:58 AM
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
more...
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 05:57 AM
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
sbarton
Jul 12, 12:07 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $699 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $699 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.
more...
darkplanets
Mar 13, 02:32 PM
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
more...
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:45 PM
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
i_am_a_cow
Mar 19, 05:51 PM
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
more...
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:55 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
more...
firestarter
Mar 13, 11:50 AM
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:20 PM
"interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes."
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and are condemned categorically by many different mainstream Christian groups. Muslims bomb churches/barracks/checkpoints/bomb shelters and very few, if any high up clerics, condemn them. Who condemned the slaying of that Jewish family in Israel/gaza? They knifed a 3 month old toddler... Later, in Gaza, Hamas was handing out sweets and the people were celebrating.
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.
The Muslims, on the other hand....
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies (Qur'an 8:60).
^ divine sanction for terrorism. It's a late surah too, so any surah about islam being tolerant, and no compulsion in religion, and do not murder are abrogated by it.
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and are condemned categorically by many different mainstream Christian groups. Muslims bomb churches/barracks/checkpoints/bomb shelters and very few, if any high up clerics, condemn them. Who condemned the slaying of that Jewish family in Israel/gaza? They knifed a 3 month old toddler... Later, in Gaza, Hamas was handing out sweets and the people were celebrating.
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.
The Muslims, on the other hand....
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies (Qur'an 8:60).
^ divine sanction for terrorism. It's a late surah too, so any surah about islam being tolerant, and no compulsion in religion, and do not murder are abrogated by it.
joemama
Sep 20, 09:21 PM
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.
go go Mr. Stereotype
go go Mr. Stereotype
more...
1macker1
Mar 18, 12:49 PM
This will cause a major problem for apple. Cant wait to see the fallout.
more...
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 07:14 PM
Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
more...
