peharri
Sep 21, 02:58 PM
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
babyj
Sep 21, 12:37 PM
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
roocka
Apr 9, 10:05 PM
1. Define a proper game. I think there are a lot of proper games on iOS. But I think I get your point. Do you mean hardcore? Halo, elder scrolls, call of duty etc.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
Lets be honest, APPLE will never buy Nintendo or Sony. Apple will make them inferior and insignificant. Apple will not create the same games but rather will change gaming. Apple will probably make gaming more interactive and more inclusive.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
Lets be honest, APPLE will never buy Nintendo or Sony. Apple will make them inferior and insignificant. Apple will not create the same games but rather will change gaming. Apple will probably make gaming more interactive and more inclusive.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
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.
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:28 AM
Wondering why Android users are on a Mac forum?
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 25, 05:11 AM
It's funny how the only place that people are unhappy with AT&T service and the iPhone is in surveys and on these forums.
While I won't pretend I read that entire, giant block of unformatted text, I will say that this is hardly the only place people complain about AT&T service. Though there are undoubtedly people that get great service and rarely drop calls on the carrier, AT&T service is almost universally disliked and has become the butt of many jokes, both on and off the Internet.
Agree about the iPhone, though I suspect most of the complaining here is due to the fact that people rarely sign up for a message board account (you being a notable exception, of course) just to say that everything is fine.
While I won't pretend I read that entire, giant block of unformatted text, I will say that this is hardly the only place people complain about AT&T service. Though there are undoubtedly people that get great service and rarely drop calls on the carrier, AT&T service is almost universally disliked and has become the butt of many jokes, both on and off the Internet.
Agree about the iPhone, though I suspect most of the complaining here is due to the fact that people rarely sign up for a message board account (you being a notable exception, of course) just to say that everything is fine.
Photics
Apr 9, 09:33 AM
Nah. All those games you mentioned would be part of a pack of 25 on Nintendo for 19.99.
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
PowerGamerX
Apr 9, 08:19 AM
These people that are trying to claim they're a hardcore gamer, aren't. A true gamer plays games, regardless of where they are played or how they are played. A gamer plays games. There's nothing more too it than that.
That said, I don't find iOS games all that compelling personally. I like to have games with a little more depth, which is why I'm a fan of the PSP. There are plenty of great iPhone games, they just aren't great for more than 5 or 10 minutes at a time.
This doesn't mean I don't like short games, no. This just means I like games to have "more than meets the eye".
That said, I don't find iOS games all that compelling personally. I like to have games with a little more depth, which is why I'm a fan of the PSP. There are plenty of great iPhone games, they just aren't great for more than 5 or 10 minutes at a time.
This doesn't mean I don't like short games, no. This just means I like games to have "more than meets the eye".
citizenzen
Mar 14, 07:15 PM
Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Thank you for admonishing me on my reading comprehension. Perhaps you could make yourself available for private tutoring to help those of us who are disadvantaged.
Burning hydrocarbons may produce less CO2 than nuclear fission, however I would be interested in seeing the entire process quantified.
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?
All of these need to be taken into account when one considers how green nuclear power is.
Thank you for admonishing me on my reading comprehension. Perhaps you could make yourself available for private tutoring to help those of us who are disadvantaged.
Burning hydrocarbons may produce less CO2 than nuclear fission, however I would be interested in seeing the entire process quantified.
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?
All of these need to be taken into account when one considers how green nuclear power is.
CallmeKenneth
Sep 20, 07:20 AM
This is just one of those things where we have no idea if it'll catch on until people start buying it (or not, as the case may be!). With anything else Apple have brought out (e.g. iPod) the need has been fairly obvious and you could tell that it was going to be a minor hit at least. I don't feel the same way about iTV. To me it just feels like *yet another* silver/grey box to stick under my TV, adding one more cable to the countless ones already there...
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
Vulpinemac
Apr 28, 09:47 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:33 AM
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
Dude! Youre trying to advocate for understanding and openness...at the same time LABELING "Social Conservatives" as the enemy? Totally lame, sorry but that hurts your credibility. Im sure theres plently of these horrid "social conservatives" that would and do lay down their lives to serve you and the freedoms you enjoy. But yeah, I suppose they dont deserve any respect. :mad:
Dude! Youre trying to advocate for understanding and openness...at the same time LABELING "Social Conservatives" as the enemy? Totally lame, sorry but that hurts your credibility. Im sure theres plently of these horrid "social conservatives" that would and do lay down their lives to serve you and the freedoms you enjoy. But yeah, I suppose they dont deserve any respect. :mad:
D4F
Apr 28, 09:44 AM
Isn't this misleading? It says 'shipped' not 'sold' so I assume basically it's a bogus report. You can ship all the crappy tablets you want..doesn't mean they sold.
I'm trying to find more on it but as far as i've read somewhere apple's data is always on units shipped including those that were used as warranty replacements (pretty much they count one as two in this case) for example. Waaay stretched in my opinion.
I'm trying to find more on it but as far as i've read somewhere apple's data is always on units shipped including those that were used as warranty replacements (pretty much they count one as two in this case) for example. Waaay stretched in my opinion.
jazzkids
May 6, 08:56 PM
Hopefully someone at ATT will read these posts! In the same boat, last 3-4 weeks been getting worse in R.I.
Xibalba
Oct 7, 04:04 PM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
Black Ops Escalation – Call of
lack ops escalation
Duty: Black Ops. Entitled
Call of Duty : Black Ops video
Speedy2
Oct 7, 04:17 PM
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:44 AM
Someone help me out here. Why do some of you insist on "tuners" in this type of device. What good are they for Cable and Satelite users? I mean, at best you could tune in the analog signals on a basic cable subscription, but most cable companies are all digital now and you can't tune in *hit without one of thier set-top cable boxes. Same goes for satelite.
You don't have DTT in the US do you? In the UK we do. That is why people want tuners.
You don't have DTT in the US do you? In the UK we do. That is why people want tuners.
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:39 PM
Firstly, let me say I'm against DRM if it restricts me using my own music I've paid for, but equally I see why artists don't want me uploading my iTunes Library to Gnutella.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
slinger1968
Nov 2, 08:24 PM
Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.
Iscariot
Mar 27, 12:16 AM
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
Compared to the alternative, it certainly seems to be.
[source: human history]
Compared to the alternative, it certainly seems to be.
[source: human history]
Mord
Jul 12, 09:12 AM
Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
it's not slower at desktop tasks, at all.
it uses the same or faster fsb (1066/1333) and the memory is faster but has a slightly higher latency but with an fsb the latency does not have that big of an impact.
xeon 51xx > conroe.
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
it's not slower at desktop tasks, at all.
it uses the same or faster fsb (1066/1333) and the memory is faster but has a slightly higher latency but with an fsb the latency does not have that big of an impact.
xeon 51xx > conroe.
~Shard~
Oct 31, 09:02 AM
My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...
I hope you don't have to wait too long... :o
I hope you don't have to wait too long... :o
Chwisch87
Jun 7, 09:42 PM
what is the number one thing people actually use ... its the phone.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
latergator116
Mar 18, 09:26 PM
I think this program is great. It will make it a lot more convenient for people to play their music anywhere they like. DRM is one of the reasons (in addition the the crummy AAC format) I don't buy music from the iTunes music store. I like being able to play my music where *I* want; I don't want Apple/RIAA putting any restrictions on that.