darkplanets
Mar 13, 02:32 PM
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
![wallpaper xp vista. Wallpaper] XP Crystal](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vTd9Bb4ZcUrkBUspT5Cv-UUqZeJjj-D286_xqgE88FA2KpNllH0pVPBT6BsuvFuoTDATWOwifbJ9c2Y9pM7z7DQFoVxe2NzCOe9yhCefmH408Y4hor5gIbPEhGbljMP3RuHW-duXgsmt8UkMLo=s0-d "Wallpaper] XP Crystal")
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:50 PM
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:57 AM
It will be. This is just barely scratching the surface.
I don't want a full OS in a tablet like the iPad. The beauty of iOS that you don't ever need to worry about file placement. Limited functionality might be nice, but a full OS like OS X on a tablet is the wrong way to go.
I don't want a full OS in a tablet like the iPad. The beauty of iOS that you don't ever need to worry about file placement. Limited functionality might be nice, but a full OS like OS X on a tablet is the wrong way to go.
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:22 AM
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:03 PM
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:59 PM
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
braddouglass
Apr 10, 04:25 PM
If you are happy with windows stick with it. if you don't "have" to switch because you need a specifitc application, just don't do it. It's not "THAT MUCH" better as everyone wants to make you believe. I still like to use my macbook though ;)
You might not like the lack of customization, the need to drag and drop to move files (most cases), windows resizing, the dock, finder in general, graphics performance, lack of games, lack of professional software other than audio/video etc... the list goes on...
So.. You can customize a mac pro just as much as any PC. There are plenty of games for mac, the good ones anyways. and they run them beautifully if your machine is equipped for it. and the gfx cards are good you just have to get a mac with a good gfx card. you cant buy a low end mac and expect it to run everything at HQ settings, nor a windows. There is tons of pro software but it is a little spendy, but what software isn't?
You might not like the lack of customization, the need to drag and drop to move files (most cases), windows resizing, the dock, finder in general, graphics performance, lack of games, lack of professional software other than audio/video etc... the list goes on...
So.. You can customize a mac pro just as much as any PC. There are plenty of games for mac, the good ones anyways. and they run them beautifully if your machine is equipped for it. and the gfx cards are good you just have to get a mac with a good gfx card. you cant buy a low end mac and expect it to run everything at HQ settings, nor a windows. There is tons of pro software but it is a little spendy, but what software isn't?
MACRUS
Apr 13, 01:43 AM
I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by your ignorance. but I don't. If you want to make a counter argument, you can start by being honest about what I was saying.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 11:59 PM
Huh? That's not Apple's fault; just like it isn't Google's fault Android only sells two phone models.
iOS runs on three devices and they all can run the same applications, so there's a large addressable market for developers that is important to consider.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
iOS runs on three devices and they all can run the same applications, so there's a large addressable market for developers that is important to consider.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
rasmasyean
Mar 14, 08:30 PM
So, if they have a serious meltdown situation, the whole site could become so contaminated that no one who wants to live more than a few hours will be able to get anywhere near the other cores to keep the hoses on them? It would seem like one meltdown will take the rest of them with it, in a sort of chain reaction.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.
Mord
Jul 12, 01:19 PM
the g5 numbers are typical, conroe nomubers are max.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:37 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to? You and I. Just like everybody is.
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to? You and I. Just like everybody is.
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:41 PM
CaoCao, just admit you lost this argument and move on.
roadbloc
Apr 9, 06:15 PM
It's all about the platform.
Not the games then? I guess that is why the Pippin was such a tremendous success. Less than 80 games, but a great bit of hardware inside the box. Everyone wanted one. :rolleyes:
Not the games then? I guess that is why the Pippin was such a tremendous success. Less than 80 games, but a great bit of hardware inside the box. Everyone wanted one. :rolleyes:
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:34 PM
Hey, if they correct this problem and be more environmentally friendly (which I hope they do) it will be just one more reason to be a proud mac user :)
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:29 PM
they left out the interesting parts to keep people guessing
It just flows... it just works..
It just flows... it just works..
bombjack
Apr 27, 06:19 AM
I switched to Mac 3 years ago and I have never looked back. most of the annoyences has been covered already, but none of them are a real showstopper.
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
hayesk
Apr 9, 09:33 PM
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Gee, and you'll also need to buy a house to play it in. Are you going to include that too? What a ridiculous statement. If the these devices only played Scrabble then you'd have a point. But these devices do so much more. So why would you say such a ridiculous thing?
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Gee, and you'll also need to buy a house to play it in. Are you going to include that too? What a ridiculous statement. If the these devices only played Scrabble then you'd have a point. But these devices do so much more. So why would you say such a ridiculous thing?
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:46 PM
It is not subverted -- it is evolved. My clients -- the content providers and advertisers -- demand viral marketing efforts -- they are ahead of the curve: they want what works, they want the uTube factor, not yesterday's in your face ads.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 08:07 PM
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
JustAGuy
Oct 12, 05:05 PM
Hi all, just thought that I'd compile and run the tests on my G4/450 and PIII/733 for comparison. VERY interesting results. I had to change the i value from 20,000 down to 5,000 to save time...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
No comments:
Post a Comment