DeathChill
Apr 20, 08:32 PM
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Multimedia
Nov 2, 12:32 PM
Can't seem to find the above mentioned statement..
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.
Seems like next Tuesday November 7 will be the date for MacBook/mini C2D release. So that leaves only Tuesday November 14 right after Intel says Clovertowns are shipping because the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday. If it doesn't happen then, I imagine we're gonna have to wait for MacWorld Expo. :(
This is all me just guessing you understand.
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.
Seems like next Tuesday November 7 will be the date for MacBook/mini C2D release. So that leaves only Tuesday November 14 right after Intel says Clovertowns are shipping because the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday. If it doesn't happen then, I imagine we're gonna have to wait for MacWorld Expo. :(
This is all me just guessing you understand.
Apple OC
Mar 13, 09:22 PM
Is it possible to like build a "Great Wall of China" arround Japan's tsunami areas?
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!.
how big should these walls be? 30-40 feet? ... might as well build them all up the coast of California too.
not really a viable solution
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!.
how big should these walls be? 30-40 feet? ... might as well build them all up the coast of California too.
not really a viable solution
mcrain
Mar 16, 12:35 PM
Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
neilp4453
Feb 21, 03:16 PM
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 04:43 AM
My only concern at this point is every iMovie user now thinking they can be a pro editor with no training and very little cost. Even a 10 year old kid will be using FCP. This is going to affect the editing job market and make editors a dime a dozen. Sure talent still matters but it is going to be harder for companies to sift through 5000 demo reels trying to find that talent. Apple has pretty much turned editing into Wal-Mart.
Wow. I don't know if it's possible to be more condescending.
Wow. I don't know if it's possible to be more condescending.
Machead III
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 01:59 PM
Perfectly fine using the new designs that run safer and can even recycle their own waste. I would not have dismissed the entire car industry just because the early models lacked safety features and had high fatality and breakdown rates. It's early days still for the nuclear power industry. We do need to work on uranium mining and milling practices, however.
%25252Bwallpapers%25252BHQ%25252BHD%25252BWide%25252Bscreen%25252Bwallpapers%25252Bmicrosoft%25252Bsurface%25252Bwallpapers.jpg "wallpaper hd windows 7. of")
tangodiva
Aug 26, 04:11 AM
Had drop call issues with my iPhone 3G ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Not kidding. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Indiana, New York, New Jersey . . . you get the picture.
Now with my iPhone 4, it is WORSE. I get dropped 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute conversation.
Talked my friend into an iPhone (it is GREAT for everything except being a phone) and she, in 3 days, has had to return 2 phones that were defective. She, a tech industry executive, asked AT&T and Apple what their failure rate was, and they replied, "We can't tell you that." Go figure. Also learned that there is one side of the band on the iPhone 4 for telephone and the other side for data. Having your hands directly on either side will diminish the reception. Using a headset does help (keeping hands off phone)
My iPad hasn't seemed to have so many problems connecting on the go, but it does run a little slower sometimes. Have to say it rules, except the flash thing (best surfing anywhere?????), but another thread:D
Now with my iPhone 4, it is WORSE. I get dropped 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute conversation.
Talked my friend into an iPhone (it is GREAT for everything except being a phone) and she, in 3 days, has had to return 2 phones that were defective. She, a tech industry executive, asked AT&T and Apple what their failure rate was, and they replied, "We can't tell you that." Go figure. Also learned that there is one side of the band on the iPhone 4 for telephone and the other side for data. Having your hands directly on either side will diminish the reception. Using a headset does help (keeping hands off phone)
My iPad hasn't seemed to have so many problems connecting on the go, but it does run a little slower sometimes. Have to say it rules, except the flash thing (best surfing anywhere?????), but another thread:D
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 11:33 AM
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
.Andy
Apr 24, 11:29 PM
The ACT test is like the SAT but for the middle of America. I got 36* and literally only studied the day before.
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:14 PM
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.
What about slavery? Does a "true Christian" support (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18) slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5)?
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.
What about slavery? Does a "true Christian" support (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18) slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5)?
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:04 PM
So this site is for fanboys only?
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
Compile 'em all
Oct 7, 11:09 AM
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Sydde
Mar 14, 07:47 PM
And as long as humans are in charge of designing, building, and maintaining them, there will be errors.
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.
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.
Tommyg117
Sep 26, 06:53 AM
8 cores? That's a lot, maybe a little too much for my computing needs.
MisterMe
May 2, 08:56 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:31 AM
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
Truffy
Apr 20, 09:32 AM
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
jealousguy86
Apr 20, 10:13 PM
buying an iphone 4 tomorrow after reading the news today and just saying "screw it."
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 07:42 PM
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
mdriftmeyer
Apr 12, 11:19 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Grow some perspective.
dr_lha
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The speculation from my general area is that Apple will never (never say never, right..) make a DVR. It's not in their interest to make a DVR. There are several companies that are doing the DVR thing for Macs (el gato and Migila) and IMO, Apple shouldn't tread those waters.
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
Good to see some people around here "get it".
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
Good to see some people around here "get it".
No comments:
Post a Comment