Multimedia
Oct 27, 12:37 AM
Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?No thoughts. Hope for the best.
Luph67
Apr 6, 09:27 PM
Is customization really any worse than windows? I have never found customization in windows to be very intuitive, and one of the draws for OS X for me would be that it looks so much cleaner (by default). I've spent ages customizing windows and can never make it look good with solid-style windows anymore. It's either transparency or it looks horrible, and I am not a big fan of transparency or aero. The only thing I can imagine wanting to customize in OS X are the icons and I already know that much easier solutions exist than for windows.
bf2008
May 2, 09:05 AM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 01:49 PM
The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
No, please stop spamming this everywhere. The Judaeo-Christian God has certain attributes which I listed. Does this Ugaritic God share the same attributes, ie omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
No, please stop spamming this everywhere. The Judaeo-Christian God has certain attributes which I listed. Does this Ugaritic God share the same attributes, ie omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 12:33 AM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2MVcAZnowo), uploaded to YouTube yesterday, has some nuclear scientists from the University of Michigan discussing the situation in Japan as they see it. They do not seem to think that a Chernobyl-level of radiation emission incident is likely, but a large but lesser radiation leak of is still possible.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
blue22
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
Steve Jobs said the new version would be "awesome," well I disagree. He was completely wrong... IT IS FREAKIN' ASTOUNDING! Bravo Apple!
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:57 PM
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.
go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.
do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.
we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"
anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.
each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.
go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.
do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.
we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"
anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.
Benjamins
Apr 9, 04:54 AM
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
short hairstyles for men 2011.
Hairstyles For Men 2011 Short.
short hair styles for men 2011
2011 Male Hairstyles for.
hairstyles for men 1 2011
Long Hair Styles For Men. 2011
short hairstyles for men 2011.
hairstyle for men
short hairstyles for men 2011.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
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?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
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?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 11:49 PM
I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
I don't know why it wouldn't work... In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen eSATA enclosures advertised as working with a Mac. I'll see if I can find one.
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
I've had pretty much the same luck... Some USB2 devices struggle a bit due to the onboard USB2 chipset, but for the most part, they're equivalent to FW400 (with a max rate of 480Mbps) and USB2 handles traffic from multiple devices better than firewire. OTOH, lots of older Mac systems, especially those Powerbook G4s, struggled with USB2 and often exhibited poor performance. But overall, I think USB2 has a bad reputation that it didn't deserve to get stuck with. In my experience having owned quite a few USB2 storage devices, I find that poor performance is more the fault of the device maker than the interface itself as I've got some hard drives - like a couple of my external Maxtor units, that perform blazingly fast and in no way slower on USB2 than when connected via FW.
I don't know why it wouldn't work... In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen eSATA enclosures advertised as working with a Mac. I'll see if I can find one.
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
I've had pretty much the same luck... Some USB2 devices struggle a bit due to the onboard USB2 chipset, but for the most part, they're equivalent to FW400 (with a max rate of 480Mbps) and USB2 handles traffic from multiple devices better than firewire. OTOH, lots of older Mac systems, especially those Powerbook G4s, struggled with USB2 and often exhibited poor performance. But overall, I think USB2 has a bad reputation that it didn't deserve to get stuck with. In my experience having owned quite a few USB2 storage devices, I find that poor performance is more the fault of the device maker than the interface itself as I've got some hard drives - like a couple of my external Maxtor units, that perform blazingly fast and in no way slower on USB2 than when connected via FW.
Sayer
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
Maybe the parents and teachers could be more effective then ephemeral videos by "concerned celebrities" and tech ppl most didn't know even existed?
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
puma1552
Mar 14, 08:09 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
The problem with this is that the general public will not see any difference between this and the nuclear they are terrified of, so it's probably campaign suicide for any advocates of it.
EDIT: Here's a FANTASTIC read on Fukushima: http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
The problem with this is that the general public will not see any difference between this and the nuclear they are terrified of, so it's probably campaign suicide for any advocates of it.
EDIT: Here's a FANTASTIC read on Fukushima: http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
Reach9
Apr 20, 08:36 PM
Oh great another Android vs. iOS argument.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
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.
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
spetznatz
Jul 13, 11:24 AM
[The majority of Mac users use Adobe products] Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop.
Well, you could try this...
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!:D
Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.
Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?
Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....
Well, you could try this...
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!:D
Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.
Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?
Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
If you don't believe me, there's plenty of history to read. Just go look at the following industries that were disrupted by technology...
korean hairstyles for men 2011
CaoCao
Mar 26, 09:07 PM
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
puuukeey
Sep 12, 04:22 PM
I just hope it gets hacked so 3rd parties can add functionality to it. (unlike front row)
video chat
screen savers
3rd party applications
RSS
3rd party streaming media formats
keyboard and mouse.
larger remotes.
video chat
screen savers
3rd party applications
RSS
3rd party streaming media formats
keyboard and mouse.
larger remotes.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:39 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
Sounds Good
Apr 11, 09:50 AM
So what is it that you and your family like about the iOS devices? Why did you choose them over a WinMo device? Why haven't you gone over to Windows Phone 7?
Because I had never used a smart-phone before the original iPhone came out. So I was pretty blown away by what a smart-phone could do, and over the years I got accustomed to iOS. Now it would be weird to switch to a Windows phone -- or even an Android phone for that matter.
Same thing with the computer, I guess. I used Windows first, got accustomed to how everything works, and I happen to LIKE the way it works.
Believe me, the temptation to try a Mac hasn't gone away. But so far I honestly can't seem to find a true advantage to doing it -- other than to satisfy a curiosity.
Because I had never used a smart-phone before the original iPhone came out. So I was pretty blown away by what a smart-phone could do, and over the years I got accustomed to iOS. Now it would be weird to switch to a Windows phone -- or even an Android phone for that matter.
Same thing with the computer, I guess. I used Windows first, got accustomed to how everything works, and I happen to LIKE the way it works.
Believe me, the temptation to try a Mac hasn't gone away. But so far I honestly can't seem to find a true advantage to doing it -- other than to satisfy a curiosity.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
Therbo
May 2, 09:25 AM
I went on a site that downloaded this a few days ago.
It opened up the installer, I simply closed the window. Its only a threat to those who proceed with the installed. Pressing the Red circle is not so hard.
You also need to remember, this software can only infect your user, not the system unless you give it your sudo password. If you can't remove it, just simply make a new user, move over the files you need and switch to that user. It will be clean of this "malware"
Unix Security FTW
It opened up the installer, I simply closed the window. Its only a threat to those who proceed with the installed. Pressing the Red circle is not so hard.
You also need to remember, this software can only infect your user, not the system unless you give it your sudo password. If you can't remove it, just simply make a new user, move over the files you need and switch to that user. It will be clean of this "malware"
Unix Security FTW