fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
malexandria
Apr 15, 11:34 AM
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Fgirl
Apr 6, 09:38 AM
this is probably the most hilarious thread ive read at MR...
not trying to insult anyone, but it's like the blind leading the blind...
'rumors' that you cant do this or you cant do that, LOL, OMG, obviously some people have no idea how to use their own computer!
i have several pc and mac that i use every day, 3 of each just at this desk im at now. neither is annoying, theyre just different.
look, the closest analog that i can describe is learning to speak a new language, perhaps french.
if someone told you dont bother learning to speak a new language because it does no good to say 'yes' or 'fries with that', youd obviously think the guys a fool.
maybe right now you dont know the words, but you know intuitively that the words are all there. you already know the language works the same, it's just different: 'oui, avec frites'.
when someone says you cant do this or you cant do that, just imagine a person who's been speaking another language for just a short while, and is trying to advise you as if they were able to speak fluently in the new language.
i think some people just hold their preference too dearly sometimes, and then insist that anything that falls outside their comfort-zone is annoying.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
not trying to insult anyone, but it's like the blind leading the blind...
'rumors' that you cant do this or you cant do that, LOL, OMG, obviously some people have no idea how to use their own computer!
i have several pc and mac that i use every day, 3 of each just at this desk im at now. neither is annoying, theyre just different.
look, the closest analog that i can describe is learning to speak a new language, perhaps french.
if someone told you dont bother learning to speak a new language because it does no good to say 'yes' or 'fries with that', youd obviously think the guys a fool.
maybe right now you dont know the words, but you know intuitively that the words are all there. you already know the language works the same, it's just different: 'oui, avec frites'.
when someone says you cant do this or you cant do that, just imagine a person who's been speaking another language for just a short while, and is trying to advise you as if they were able to speak fluently in the new language.
i think some people just hold their preference too dearly sometimes, and then insist that anything that falls outside their comfort-zone is annoying.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 13, 01:29 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
R.Perez
Apr 15, 01:05 PM
LGBTQ teens are at the highest risk factor for suicide among ANY of their peers. That is why videos like this are more important than say "fat bullying."
puma1552
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:55 PM
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
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...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
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. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
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. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
nacnud
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
This iTV seems like a very interesting device, first off it appears to be a HD wireless media streaming box like the Hauppauge Media MVP but hopefuly with a nicer UI.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
ZDDP1273
Aug 8, 07:36 PM
I get dropped calls a few times a week, but I guess I just deal with it. I have come to a realization that nothing is ever really going to be perfect, so I guess I just deal with it. I do understand that people would be frustrated with it though.
skunk
Apr 24, 03:25 PM
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin. I think you'll have to try again here: I have no idea what you are saying.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 09:44 PM
The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:
Is this really true?No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for different client projects.maxupgrades.com (http://maxupgrades.com) should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.Good to know.
Just noticed 1-8004MEMORY is now selling 4GB KIT (2GBX2) DDR2 667 ECC FULLY BUFFERED FOR APPLE MAC PRO for only $690 each via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459) . This makes 2GB sticks now lower crossover price per GB - $172.50 each - vs. 1GB sticks which are priced more than $200 each now. Happy days are here again!
But not sure if heatsinks are included. Can't tell without calling them tomorrow.
Then I would add a pair of $75 MaxSink Heatsinks (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=157) for a total of $765 per 2x2GB kit still only $191.25/GB.
Or just get the MaxSinks already installed properly with 2 Samsung 2GB sticks for $789 from MaxUpgrades.com.
So a 6GB 8-Core Mac Pro is looking like about $4500 to me now.
Is this really true?No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for different client projects.maxupgrades.com (http://maxupgrades.com) should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.Good to know.
Just noticed 1-8004MEMORY is now selling 4GB KIT (2GBX2) DDR2 667 ECC FULLY BUFFERED FOR APPLE MAC PRO for only $690 each via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459) . This makes 2GB sticks now lower crossover price per GB - $172.50 each - vs. 1GB sticks which are priced more than $200 each now. Happy days are here again!
But not sure if heatsinks are included. Can't tell without calling them tomorrow.
Then I would add a pair of $75 MaxSink Heatsinks (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=157) for a total of $765 per 2x2GB kit still only $191.25/GB.
Or just get the MaxSinks already installed properly with 2 Samsung 2GB sticks for $789 from MaxUpgrades.com.
So a 6GB 8-Core Mac Pro is looking like about $4500 to me now.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:04 AM
Additional tethering charge on an unlimited data plan: justified.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 09:12 AM
when i got my ibook, which was manufactured in summer-1999 and listed for $1599 us, i got a 300 mhz G3 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 3 GB hard drive, 4 MB agp graphics, and os 9.0
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:13 AM
So this'll mean one of 3 things.
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc...
What I think will happen is that the "MacPro Mini" will have one 16x PCI-E slot, and maybe two PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would have two 16x PCI-E slots (for dual-graphics), and maybe 3 PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would also have four drive-bays for HD's (hot-swappable, maybe? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2600408#post2600408)), whereas MacPro Mini would have just two. MacPro would be all quad (starting from 2x 2Ghz, through 2x 2.33Ghz to 2x 3Ghz), whereas Mini would be 1x 2.33Ghz and 1x 2.66Ghz.
If they did something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But MacPro would still offer substantial benefits over the Mini, so the people looking at the $1999 MacPro Mini would start to think "why not spend just a bit more, and get a MacPro with all these additional features?". We are already seeing that in iPods :).
Please Apple: You know this makes sense! There are LOTS of people waiting for the MacPro Mini!
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc...
What I think will happen is that the "MacPro Mini" will have one 16x PCI-E slot, and maybe two PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would have two 16x PCI-E slots (for dual-graphics), and maybe 3 PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would also have four drive-bays for HD's (hot-swappable, maybe? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2600408#post2600408)), whereas MacPro Mini would have just two. MacPro would be all quad (starting from 2x 2Ghz, through 2x 2.33Ghz to 2x 3Ghz), whereas Mini would be 1x 2.33Ghz and 1x 2.66Ghz.
If they did something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But MacPro would still offer substantial benefits over the Mini, so the people looking at the $1999 MacPro Mini would start to think "why not spend just a bit more, and get a MacPro with all these additional features?". We are already seeing that in iPods :).
Please Apple: You know this makes sense! There are LOTS of people waiting for the MacPro Mini!
Multimedia
Oct 21, 01:11 PM
Anyone know anything about these suppliers, other than Crucial Technology?I know Omni and 1-800-4MEMORY are both suppliers of good ram for less money.
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 07:12 PM
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 10:10 AM
And, for many in that 1%, it's never going to stop until they learn to deal with it -- you can stop bullying in schools, but once you get out in the real world it becomes a much more difficult thing. You can't shield people from hate / fear / dislike or being singled out for being different. You can try to educate, you can try to get people to stop, but at the end of the day there will always be bullies and there will always be people being picked on.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
yeah you do not know what you are talking about and you can not be MORE DEAD WRONG.
I was among that 1% who was picked on. Things get better after high school and easier. Not harder. Reason why is in college you choose a major and often times that major is going to have a lot more people who are a lot like you and have similar interested. On top of that there are many more groups so to speak that you can find and line up with. Helps finding a small group of friends. Add to that fact that people generally do not pick on people as much as adults.
hit the real world you also find your own voice and own friends. You learn that HS is not a big deal and that picking on stuff not as big of a deal. Problem is making it there and it has long term effects. I still suffer with depression. I still have the mental and emotional scares of my school years that would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
But I will also state that the amount of picking on bulling I have had to put up with in the REAL WORLD (yes real job) is very little and almost always in jest. The amount that is not is so minor I can let it roll off. It never builds up and I am allowed time to recover from any I do get thrown at me. It is not day in and day out.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
yeah you do not know what you are talking about and you can not be MORE DEAD WRONG.
I was among that 1% who was picked on. Things get better after high school and easier. Not harder. Reason why is in college you choose a major and often times that major is going to have a lot more people who are a lot like you and have similar interested. On top of that there are many more groups so to speak that you can find and line up with. Helps finding a small group of friends. Add to that fact that people generally do not pick on people as much as adults.
hit the real world you also find your own voice and own friends. You learn that HS is not a big deal and that picking on stuff not as big of a deal. Problem is making it there and it has long term effects. I still suffer with depression. I still have the mental and emotional scares of my school years that would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
But I will also state that the amount of picking on bulling I have had to put up with in the REAL WORLD (yes real job) is very little and almost always in jest. The amount that is not is so minor I can let it roll off. It never builds up and I am allowed time to recover from any I do get thrown at me. It is not day in and day out.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Watch for EyeTV and Apple coming together over the next 3 months!!
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
Gelfin
Mar 26, 03:31 PM
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
Cerebrus' Maw
Feb 23, 06:40 PM
Android is going to do what Windows did. Those who like that Windows experience (read "cheap") are going to go in that direction. Those that want the elegant, minimalistic, rock solid OS, continue to stay with iPhone.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.
Post Title → william
