firestarter
Apr 24, 12:16 PM
I'm not trying to further some Christian agenda or proselytise. I'm saying these things because I would rather support Christianity/Judaism/Atheism/whatever than Islam.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
Blasphemy is only one aspect of religious control and oppression in society.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
Blasphemy is only one aspect of religious control and oppression in society.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:18 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
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.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
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.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 10:33 PM
It's the Eye of Providence! The all seeing eye of God. It also has some sort of connection to the Freemasons (I'm not sure how true that is!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence
Thanks for that ... I also find the "Federal Reserve" a little mysterious
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence
Thanks for that ... I also find the "Federal Reserve" a little mysterious
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
Multimedia
Sep 28, 04:40 PM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 11:13 PM
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
I'm sorry to hear that you are illiterate and southern-bred :(
I can't relate to the acronym ACT, but I hope it's not the same as an IQ test in terms of how the score is computed.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
I'm sorry to hear that you are illiterate and southern-bred :(
I can't relate to the acronym ACT, but I hope it's not the same as an IQ test in terms of how the score is computed.
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:47 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?
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?
Red-red
Apr 9, 07:57 PM
And it still won't work.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
stunna
Jul 12, 03:19 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
You are a smart man.
no sarcasim or anything i'm being serious
At the end of the day you gotta tell yourself why pay more and get less
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
You are a smart man.
no sarcasim or anything i'm being serious
At the end of the day you gotta tell yourself why pay more and get less
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 06:03 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Recent items are "today, yesterday, and past week." I checked with the 'finder' and a document showed up yesterday without accessing my documents folder. Hope this helps, as you sound computer savvy!
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Recent items are "today, yesterday, and past week." I checked with the 'finder' and a document showed up yesterday without accessing my documents folder. Hope this helps, as you sound computer savvy!
Multimedia
Oct 9, 10:21 AM
I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.After watching that video I am more hyped up about getting the 8-core Mac Pro than before for my Multi-Threaded Workload. I also watched the Otellini Keynote (http://mfile.akamai.com/28603/wmv/intelstudio.download.akamai.com/10670//idf/event3/092606_pso/pso_high.wmv) and was struck by Phil Schiller's appearance where he REFUSED to utter the phrase "Core 2 Duo" with regard to the 24" iMac on stage. I was shocked and appalled that he made no mention it is Core 2 Duo. He called it a Core Duo iMac. Blows me away he forgot to say the "2" part.
I can't tell if that was intentional on his part or not. :eek:
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.After watching that video I am more hyped up about getting the 8-core Mac Pro than before for my Multi-Threaded Workload. I also watched the Otellini Keynote (http://mfile.akamai.com/28603/wmv/intelstudio.download.akamai.com/10670//idf/event3/092606_pso/pso_high.wmv) and was struck by Phil Schiller's appearance where he REFUSED to utter the phrase "Core 2 Duo" with regard to the 24" iMac on stage. I was shocked and appalled that he made no mention it is Core 2 Duo. He called it a Core Duo iMac. Blows me away he forgot to say the "2" part.
I can't tell if that was intentional on his part or not. :eek:
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 03:21 PM
Looks like it. And BTW, I don't think the Japanese people would think leaving their homeland and going to the USA is a good idea. Not saying they don't like the US, but generally, just generally, people tend to care more about their own countries and cultures than about the American ones. Just saying.
I've found that most people don't care as much about their country as people believe (or say they do). They and their families well being come first above all else in almost ALL cases of people. They only care about the "country" when it benefits them in a way that they know (or are used to).
Not that I hope there is, but if there is nuclear a threat to their health, or their (future) children's health, you better bet they will move along to better pastures. How far...is the big question only time will answer.
As for "moving to the US" one of the reasons why the US is so "advanced" is not because of age old traditional Americans' feats, but the immigrants who were given the opportunity to migrate here to "escape" their country. You didn't think we invented rockety, did you? What about nuclear power? E=mc2 itself was discoverd by someone who really didn't love his country! And a whole slew of other things...like the early computers. Mostly all of this was by immigrants who left their country to go to "the land of opportunity". Whether you can say this is truly still "the land of opportunity" is still arguable...heck, maybe it's actually China like some ppl believe. But it's a wonder because if you follow some of the highest tech research and developments (often military in nature), the Ph.D.s that are involved usually have CHINESE names! Go figure... ;)
I've found that most people don't care as much about their country as people believe (or say they do). They and their families well being come first above all else in almost ALL cases of people. They only care about the "country" when it benefits them in a way that they know (or are used to).
Not that I hope there is, but if there is nuclear a threat to their health, or their (future) children's health, you better bet they will move along to better pastures. How far...is the big question only time will answer.
As for "moving to the US" one of the reasons why the US is so "advanced" is not because of age old traditional Americans' feats, but the immigrants who were given the opportunity to migrate here to "escape" their country. You didn't think we invented rockety, did you? What about nuclear power? E=mc2 itself was discoverd by someone who really didn't love his country! And a whole slew of other things...like the early computers. Mostly all of this was by immigrants who left their country to go to "the land of opportunity". Whether you can say this is truly still "the land of opportunity" is still arguable...heck, maybe it's actually China like some ppl believe. But it's a wonder because if you follow some of the highest tech research and developments (often military in nature), the Ph.D.s that are involved usually have CHINESE names! Go figure... ;)
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:55 PM
or vice versa for that matter.
Good point.
Good point.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:36 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
This was the selling point for me--HD downloads. So far what I know about this machine, I'm sold. I will gladly download 9GB files. Since I download various large files regularly anyway, this isn't a killer for me.
The HDD space worries me a little. I'm betting they'll offer different versions with $299 being the entry level model with the smallest hard drive. More space will come on higher priced sets. But the harddisk size is something I'm a little concerned about. Does anyone know if it was mentioned wether movies bought can be transfered to another harddrive for safekeeping, or something along those lines?
EDIT: Ahhh... so no harddrive? It just streams content you've downloaded on your computer? That's even more awesome! :)
Personally, I notice a huge difference between DVD and regular TV. Of course, that's also dependent upon the quality of the HD transfer. Often, HDNET movies are just quick and dirty HD transfers of old movies so they don't look as nice as say an HD NFL broadcast for example. A few weeks ago, some friends were over and we were watching 2001 on HDNET movies, and they were expressing that it looked nice, but not that great (IMO, it looked amazing. I'd never seen it look that good.) Anyway, I went and got my DVD of put it in the player, cued it up to about the point in the movie where the HDNET version was at, and then I switched between the two. Everyone's jaw dropped at the difference in quality. I was even surprised a little at the disparity between the two.
But, my fiance' is one of those who doesn't really notice that much of a difference, just like a lot of people. Regular broadcast or DVD and HD aren't like night and day. They're more like a nice day and a rainy day, if you catch my analogy.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really excited about this set top HD box. :)
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
This was the selling point for me--HD downloads. So far what I know about this machine, I'm sold. I will gladly download 9GB files. Since I download various large files regularly anyway, this isn't a killer for me.
The HDD space worries me a little. I'm betting they'll offer different versions with $299 being the entry level model with the smallest hard drive. More space will come on higher priced sets. But the harddisk size is something I'm a little concerned about. Does anyone know if it was mentioned wether movies bought can be transfered to another harddrive for safekeeping, or something along those lines?
EDIT: Ahhh... so no harddrive? It just streams content you've downloaded on your computer? That's even more awesome! :)
Personally, I notice a huge difference between DVD and regular TV. Of course, that's also dependent upon the quality of the HD transfer. Often, HDNET movies are just quick and dirty HD transfers of old movies so they don't look as nice as say an HD NFL broadcast for example. A few weeks ago, some friends were over and we were watching 2001 on HDNET movies, and they were expressing that it looked nice, but not that great (IMO, it looked amazing. I'd never seen it look that good.) Anyway, I went and got my DVD of put it in the player, cued it up to about the point in the movie where the HDNET version was at, and then I switched between the two. Everyone's jaw dropped at the difference in quality. I was even surprised a little at the disparity between the two.
But, my fiance' is one of those who doesn't really notice that much of a difference, just like a lot of people. Regular broadcast or DVD and HD aren't like night and day. They're more like a nice day and a rainy day, if you catch my analogy.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really excited about this set top HD box. :)
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 02:00 PM
Thankyou Jerry!
baleensavage
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
But I expected something abit more radical than what they showed.
Me too. The other announcements met or exceeded my expectations, but the iTV just made me wonder why Apple even bothered. It's not a very revolutionary product to warrant a preview. As far as I can tell is its a souped up Airport with HDMI ports that can run Front Row. What can that offer me that a $40 DVD player from Best Buy can't. The DVD player has better resolution, costs 7.5 times less and has more content available for it. Sure I don't have to change DVDs but Im not that lazy yet that I mind doing that.
Now if it would stream HD content... that would be another story. Give me another option other than participating in Sony and Toshibas little spat. That would be cool.
Me too. The other announcements met or exceeded my expectations, but the iTV just made me wonder why Apple even bothered. It's not a very revolutionary product to warrant a preview. As far as I can tell is its a souped up Airport with HDMI ports that can run Front Row. What can that offer me that a $40 DVD player from Best Buy can't. The DVD player has better resolution, costs 7.5 times less and has more content available for it. Sure I don't have to change DVDs but Im not that lazy yet that I mind doing that.
Now if it would stream HD content... that would be another story. Give me another option other than participating in Sony and Toshibas little spat. That would be cool.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 10:53 PM
It was not a Latin sentence, so it was certainly meaningless in Latin. If you look up "sign", as a noun meaning signification, and instead choose the first person singular of the Latin verb meaning "sign a letter", you are not off to a very promising start. Cicero would be rolling in his grave.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
Black94TSi
May 5, 03:01 PM
I live in an area where there are 4 towers within 3 miles. I have usually 2 bars in my house and 5 bars outside.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
sangre de toro
Mar 18, 03:04 PM
the more barriers there are the more we get used to them. Give us a break! You pay for it, you use it and if anybody restricts you ... Long live to the many dvd whatever!
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
I can see where you're coming from regarding linear programming. However, commercials aren't going away and any effort to subvert advertising will be met with strong resistance from the content providers.
I can see where you're coming from regarding linear programming. However, commercials aren't going away and any effort to subvert advertising will be met with strong resistance from the content providers.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:46 PM
After much debate and anguish i finally decided to order my Mac Pro yesterday... figures this would come up now.... /sigh. I am assuming they will only add a higher end config, but honestley... do any of us know?So you didn't know they were going 8-Core next month? It's only gonna be an extra $300 over the price of the 4-Core 3GHz model for the 8-Core 2.66GHz model. If you are into video and especially compression, 8-cores will make a big productivity difference.
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Yeah, but it sure says that we won't get far if we act like what we are.
Again, completely irrelevant, since this is not catholic theocracy, and your book has no bearing on my life. If that's how you choose to believe, fine- but leave me out of it, and stop trying to force us to live by your rules through law. And guess what? We'll get along just fine.
Yeah, but it sure says that we won't get far if we act like what we are.
Again, completely irrelevant, since this is not catholic theocracy, and your book has no bearing on my life. If that's how you choose to believe, fine- but leave me out of it, and stop trying to force us to live by your rules through law. And guess what? We'll get along just fine.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.