Clive At Five
Sep 21, 12:43 PM
I think we'd all agree it'd be nice for Apple to have more of a worldwide presence. As for emerging technologies, global efforts require a lot more research and funding than if Apple were to just stay in the U.S. That's why Apple's technologies always start here.
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
dragonsbane
Mar 21, 08:06 AM
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
MacAddict1978
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
That's really a funny comment, as I've yet see any company suffer for GLBT support. I mean Starbucks, Target, The Gap, American Express, MasterCard, Goldman Sachs, Bank Of America, Best Buy, Barnes & Nobel, AT&T, Verizon, Dell, The Home Depot, Marshalls, Quest, Sprint, Disney, Whole Foods, BP, and well gee, I could go on and on. Yes. There have been boycotts and pickets of all these companies. NOT.
I'm curious as to the 70 people who rated this negative. But it's great that the overwhelming majority rated it a positive. I don't think anyone can understand how important it is to send messages like this that hasn't been through it.
That's really a funny comment, as I've yet see any company suffer for GLBT support. I mean Starbucks, Target, The Gap, American Express, MasterCard, Goldman Sachs, Bank Of America, Best Buy, Barnes & Nobel, AT&T, Verizon, Dell, The Home Depot, Marshalls, Quest, Sprint, Disney, Whole Foods, BP, and well gee, I could go on and on. Yes. There have been boycotts and pickets of all these companies. NOT.
I'm curious as to the 70 people who rated this negative. But it's great that the overwhelming majority rated it a positive. I don't think anyone can understand how important it is to send messages like this that hasn't been through it.
rdowns
Apr 15, 12:45 PM
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
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.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
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.
TheAppleDragon
May 2, 01:34 PM
The article -> http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/
Here is how it works:
Why is everyone acting like this is new?
Malware like this has been around for quite some time. It's always been the same - just exit the stupid installer and absolutely nothing happens.
Now if/when the malware auto-installs, by THEN it will be a threat. So far Apple has been good at patching loopholes, though.
Here is how it works:
Why is everyone acting like this is new?
Malware like this has been around for quite some time. It's always been the same - just exit the stupid installer and absolutely nothing happens.
Now if/when the malware auto-installs, by THEN it will be a threat. So far Apple has been good at patching loopholes, though.
bruinsrme
Apr 23, 12:46 PM
Blue..... Thank you for the taking the time to share those tips.....
Cromulent
Apr 24, 10:13 AM
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.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
mcmarks
May 2, 12:19 PM
A couple of points:
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:28 AM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
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...
Stella
Mar 18, 10:00 AM
This is beyond the mark...
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:56 PM
I still regard nuclear fission as the best option among fossil fuel technologies to get us over the hump until alternative energy sources can cover 100% of demand and/or nuclear fusion is ready for commercial use. I still would prefer us to phase out coal, oil, gas and trash burning plants before we shut down our nuclear reactors as they have better carbon footprints and the mining of their fuel is overall less damaging than coal strip mining. Do we need to quickly move away from Gen I and II technology and get to at least III+ technology for all of our reactors, absolutely, but exiting nuclear fission technology at least in the short to midterm seems like a poor choice to me.
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:32 AM
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 11:43 PM
Do you think the people you know represent a fair sample group? You don't know anyone who needs Windows for work?
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
TheGeekNextDoor
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Why do they have to charge for tethering? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I tether a lot, I will use more than 2 gigs in a month. Charge me extra at that point. At least they now give you 2 Gig extra for your tethering money. I would just prefer to not pay for that extra 2 gig until I need it. I only need to tether once a month at best, so I don't want to pay for a bunch of tethering. I also don't want to leave my unlimited plan. Sadly, I have never gone over 2 GB, but I like knowing that I don't have to worry about it.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 09:43 PM
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
lifeinhd
Apr 9, 05:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Real gamers won't use apple gear (for gaming at least). I don't really like the online game craze. You can't borrow games from friends or even trade them (yeah more profit for the industry).
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
*Sniff*
*Sniff*
Troll.
Real gamers won't use apple gear (for gaming at least). I don't really like the online game craze. You can't borrow games from friends or even trade them (yeah more profit for the industry).
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
*Sniff*
*Sniff*
Troll.
1macker1
Mar 18, 12:49 PM
This will cause a major problem for apple. Cant wait to see the fallout.
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
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 Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
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 Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
SRSound
Oct 29, 10:05 AM
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
ReanimationLP
Oct 15, 01:11 AM
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
Seconded, hell, my Mac is an OLD Digital Audio G4, and my PC is Northwood Pentium 4 HT processor. :o :o
Seconded, hell, my Mac is an OLD Digital Audio G4, and my PC is Northwood Pentium 4 HT processor. :o :o
puma1552
Mar 15, 10:10 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment