Eastend
Sep 26, 03:31 AM
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
2002 Toyota Corolla CE in Plantation, Florida. Internet Price; $6998. Exterior: Silverstream Opalescent; Interior: Light Charcoal; Stock #: 5911a
2002 Toyota Corolla CE
2002 Toyota Corolla CE Vehicle
2002 Toyota Corolla CE Hamburg
2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE USED SALVAGE COPART Lot # 15795651. prev image large images next image
2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE SALVAGE COPART Lot # 16085091. prev image large images next image
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
reel2reel
May 2, 09:15 AM
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
*LTD*
Apr 13, 05:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
AppliedVisual
Nov 1, 06:35 PM
Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:50 PM
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
Good we need more people to do that :) And i do agree with you about burning fossil fuels. Contributes the most.
Good we need more people to do that :) And i do agree with you about burning fossil fuels. Contributes the most.
wkhahn
Sep 20, 10:34 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
slu
Oct 7, 02:55 PM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE REBUILDABLE COPART Lot # 14508931. prev image large images next image
2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE DAMAGED
2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE DAMAGED
2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE
2002 - Used Toyota Corolla 4dr
2004 Toyota Corolla CE Oakland
2002 Toyota Corolla 4dr Sdn CE
1998-2002 Toyota Corolla
1998-2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE
1998-2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE
98-2002 TOYOTA COROLLA FOG
2002 TOYOTA COROLLA CE
Zunjine
Apr 15, 12:53 PM
I know, right? You can't blame the Catholic Church because some of their chosen leaders like to diddle children. Sickos are bound to be found even in the most pristine of institutions.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Agreed - no one blames the Church for the existence of pedophiles. They blame the Church for a massive, systemic coverup lasting decades during which known child abusers were allowed to abuse thousands and thousands of Children who had been placed in the care of that same Church.
I don't want them to burn in hell - they need only confess their sins and ask for forgiveness anyway. I want them to rot in jail.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Agreed - no one blames the Church for the existence of pedophiles. They blame the Church for a massive, systemic coverup lasting decades during which known child abusers were allowed to abuse thousands and thousands of Children who had been placed in the care of that same Church.
I don't want them to burn in hell - they need only confess their sins and ask for forgiveness anyway. I want them to rot in jail.
CaoCao
Mar 27, 04:15 PM
If he did that, he goofed. But I know I made a mistake: I missed your point. Now I understand it. Thanks. Maybe he tried to communicate with me in Latin because he know I usually attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
Indeed sir, that is why I tried.
Deo favente
Pax
Indeed sir, that is why I tried.
Deo favente
Pax
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:32 AM
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
bruinsrme
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
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.
flopticalcube
Apr 26, 02:36 PM
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
O'heresy!
But well put.
O'heresy!
But well put.
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 04:59 AM
No, but how is that relevant anyway? An Apple fan was dissing microsoft.
No I was just saying that 'holding it wrong' is a phrase that came out first from Google.
So putting it in that context would be wrong.
:)
No I was just saying that 'holding it wrong' is a phrase that came out first from Google.
So putting it in that context would be wrong.
:)
dr_lha
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
Nice, but I'd need to buy a new TV to use it. My TV doesn't support either Component or HDMI. Would a S-Video output be too much to ask for? I guess maybe they could have a dongle that converts HDMI->S-Video, like I use on my Mac mini right now (DVI -> S-Video).
amac4me
Jul 12, 08:58 AM
Oh yeah, these babies will fly. Looking to replace my 2004 PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5
Bring it on :D
Bring it on :D
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:59 PM
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
If I had the answer as to how this was going to be contained ... I would be over there "containing it"
I just saw a disturbing press conference from the Japanese Government where they released a brief statement that all the workers have suspended work at the 6 reactors.
myself ... I am glued to this story and am sure that even if it takes the International Community to "contain, repair, or stop" this disaster ... that will be done. The world is not just going to let this "Air itself out"
Have I defined "contain" to your satisfaction?
If I had the answer as to how this was going to be contained ... I would be over there "containing it"
I just saw a disturbing press conference from the Japanese Government where they released a brief statement that all the workers have suspended work at the 6 reactors.
myself ... I am glued to this story and am sure that even if it takes the International Community to "contain, repair, or stop" this disaster ... that will be done. The world is not just going to let this "Air itself out"
Have I defined "contain" to your satisfaction?
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 11:41 AM
Yep. Now I can't get the idea of orbiting teapots out of my mind.
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:13 PM
Open Terminal, run: ls /
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
More to your point though, all UNIX derivatives have some primitive form of this feature (well... somewhat different but still) as manifested in the behavior of "ls" (and other) command which by default "hides" the files which names start with "."
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
More to your point though, all UNIX derivatives have some primitive form of this feature (well... somewhat different but still) as manifested in the behavior of "ls" (and other) command which by default "hides" the files which names start with "."
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:18 AM
The point is, it's Apple. It's where the entire market is headed.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Piggie
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
Piggie, I think Apple is satisfied with their Mac market trend (climbing) and is viewing phones and tablets as the future (and it's where they make the vast majority of their corporate profits now). And when a family in the UK walks into a store and sees the tablet displays, they will find that the best tablet (iPad) is also the tablet that costs no more than the rivals.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
At the moment yes, I agree with you fully.
However, I'm not convinced that this will stay this way long term.
Once Asus, Acer etc etc really nail the tablet form factor, and major size component plants kicking out parts, I don't see any reason why Tablets won't drop to low end, or sub low end laptops.
If I can walk into a superstore down the road and buy a full laptop (not netbook) running Windows with a HDD etc etc, for �299. I don't believe there is any reason why a Tablet, given time will not drop to this or probably lower price points. After all, there is much less in a tablet.
I'm not saying we will, but we could be in a position at the end of this decade when Apple have the nice, but expensive tablets, and again, there are rows of cheaper ones that do the same job made by others.
�400 to �500 is still a heck of a lot of money to many. I am aware Americans have more disposable income, so it's said, than UK customers, so perhaps peoples perceptions of expensive is a little different over there.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
At the moment yes, I agree with you fully.
However, I'm not convinced that this will stay this way long term.
Once Asus, Acer etc etc really nail the tablet form factor, and major size component plants kicking out parts, I don't see any reason why Tablets won't drop to low end, or sub low end laptops.
If I can walk into a superstore down the road and buy a full laptop (not netbook) running Windows with a HDD etc etc, for �299. I don't believe there is any reason why a Tablet, given time will not drop to this or probably lower price points. After all, there is much less in a tablet.
I'm not saying we will, but we could be in a position at the end of this decade when Apple have the nice, but expensive tablets, and again, there are rows of cheaper ones that do the same job made by others.
�400 to �500 is still a heck of a lot of money to many. I am aware Americans have more disposable income, so it's said, than UK customers, so perhaps peoples perceptions of expensive is a little different over there.
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:05 PM
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
Multimedia
Sep 28, 01:35 PM
Anyone notice that Apple also released Logic Express & Pro 7.2.3 updates both now supporting 4 cores Wednesday as well as iTunes update 7.0.1?
Apple releases Logic Pro, Logic Express updates (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2089)
"Apple also noted that Logic Pro 7.2.3 is optimized for PowerPC G4, G5 and Intel based Macs with up to 2 dual-core processors." Same is true for Logic Express.
This is a very big evolutionary multicore support step for the Logic gang. Finally gives me incentive to want to buy Logic Pro.I find it was posted here on page 2 yesterday.Thanks for the heads up.
Apple releases Logic Pro, Logic Express updates (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2089)
"Apple also noted that Logic Pro 7.2.3 is optimized for PowerPC G4, G5 and Intel based Macs with up to 2 dual-core processors." Same is true for Logic Express.
This is a very big evolutionary multicore support step for the Logic gang. Finally gives me incentive to want to buy Logic Pro.I find it was posted here on page 2 yesterday.Thanks for the heads up.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 08:46 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.