Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:27 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 03:56 PM
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
ZenoVT
May 8, 03:41 PM
I live in manhattan and the call failed frequency is soo great that if I'm connected to wifi, you bet I'm using skype to make my calls. I hate when I'm on hold with a company going through those annoying labyrinth of an automated they set up to tie us in a loop, and when i finally get a hold of a representative I get a Call Failed error on my iPhone.
Xeperu
Apr 26, 01:15 PM
The deal with religious people is to ignore them if you disagree.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
millerb7
May 2, 11:31 AM
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
dnedved
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
This is the device I've been waiting for 2+ years for Apple to come out with. Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans. This hasn't just killed the current Tivo, this has killed the gen4 Tivo that isn't even out yet. It's stolen its thunder by at least a year if not much more.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
eawmp1
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
LimeiBook86
Apr 15, 09:14 AM
Pixar did a similar video like this, it was the first one I've seen. Glad to see Apple doing one as well. :) Great idea, very nice! :D
Warbrain
Sep 26, 07:43 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
steadysignal
May 3, 07:24 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how your post is at -19.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how your post is at -19.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:46 AM
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Watch for EyeTV and Apple coming together over the next 3 months!!
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
tf23
Sep 12, 08:14 PM
I think it was a big mistake not to add a HD/TV-tuner/optical reader... THAT could be a killer. Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
A tv-tuner/encoding chip on the thing would a) raise the price and b) be counter-productive for them to *sell* content through iTunes. So they won't do it.
But the eyeTV et all 3rd party makers have just got to be drooling over this 'iTV'. If there's enough processor power in the thing to play full HD out w/ full dolby audio, then it's only a matter of time (or imcremental upgrades) to 3rd party add-ons that could possibly let the 'iTV' grab content and store it locally on itself.
I for one hope the iTV can mount NFS shares and look for media files. If not NFS, smb could work, too.
A tv-tuner/encoding chip on the thing would a) raise the price and b) be counter-productive for them to *sell* content through iTunes. So they won't do it.
But the eyeTV et all 3rd party makers have just got to be drooling over this 'iTV'. If there's enough processor power in the thing to play full HD out w/ full dolby audio, then it's only a matter of time (or imcremental upgrades) to 3rd party add-ons that could possibly let the 'iTV' grab content and store it locally on itself.
I for one hope the iTV can mount NFS shares and look for media files. If not NFS, smb could work, too.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 03:57 AM
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
pik.
Oct 7, 01:58 PM
if iPhone OS remains to 2 cell phones then YES in the future iPhone will decrease...
it is sure.
Apple must do Phones in 3 price scale...fully unlocked and without the stupid blocks in terms of closed OS.
it is sure.
Apple must do Phones in 3 price scale...fully unlocked and without the stupid blocks in terms of closed OS.
firestarter
Mar 14, 11:30 AM
"Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this."
If you've got an hour 20 to kill, you can view Goto's entire press conference from today: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13320522
(He's also going to be doing an update, with another conference same time tomorrow).
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
He's also concerned that the senior people making decisions may not be the correct/most knowledgable... which wouldn't be a surprise to student of Japanese corporations (or any corporation, to be fair).
If you've got an hour 20 to kill, you can view Goto's entire press conference from today: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13320522
(He's also going to be doing an update, with another conference same time tomorrow).
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
He's also concerned that the senior people making decisions may not be the correct/most knowledgable... which wouldn't be a surprise to student of Japanese corporations (or any corporation, to be fair).
skunk
Mar 14, 04:22 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Huntn
Apr 23, 10:39 PM
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
UnixMac
Oct 11, 09:36 AM
Oh well, I'm out of my league on this.... I'll defer to others..
zencowboy
May 5, 01:23 PM
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder and when traveling to Golden and Evergreen CO using At&t since 2005 with an iphone and LG phone since then. From all the posts saying works here...doesn't work here, seems there must be more to the issue!?
A 'joke' that came to mind is some folks energy vibe might be quite low that it must be sucking the calls connecting waves right out of the phone and thus dropping calls:p
A 'joke' that came to mind is some folks energy vibe might be quite low that it must be sucking the calls connecting waves right out of the phone and thus dropping calls:p
beret9987
Nov 12, 03:09 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:46 AM
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
Interesting...
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment