uzombie
Sep 26, 12:49 PM
Since the 3.0ghz Woodcrest is now about $875 (street), I am betting it will drop another $100 when the Clovertown 4 cores are released (Those prices are for 1000 lot each, so resellers will undoubtedly charge more). Until the Woodcrest 3.0Ghz duals hit below the $450 mark, it makes more $ense to get the CPUs you need, now. (that is in the MacPro, not as self-upgrades)
It looks like you are better off buying the mac you want, than wait for CPU prices to drop enough to build on-the-cheap (getting low-end 2.0ghz, then upgrading to X1900 and dual Clovertown 2.66 4-cores). By the time the price on those CPUs is reasonable, Apple may have a new Pro and bus. And intel wil have more cores than we need. Or atleast, the hardware is far ahead of the software written to fully utilize the cores.
We welcome the bloatware overloards! ;)
It looks like you are better off buying the mac you want, than wait for CPU prices to drop enough to build on-the-cheap (getting low-end 2.0ghz, then upgrading to X1900 and dual Clovertown 2.66 4-cores). By the time the price on those CPUs is reasonable, Apple may have a new Pro and bus. And intel wil have more cores than we need. Or atleast, the hardware is far ahead of the software written to fully utilize the cores.
We welcome the bloatware overloards! ;)
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:22 AM
I find it such a shame about the the low standards we as Americans have for our mobile providers. I see many people with the satisfaction of AT&T around the country, that they have no connection problems. Here is the problem. We are so accustomed to saying that signal strength is the be all and end all. The next question should be network speed. Case in point, I have family in Ottawa in Canada. He did a speedtest, during a weekday, and was getting 5.8 - 6.0 Mbps download speeds on Rogers and Fido networks. What do I get in NYC the fastest? On a good day 2.0 Mbps. The same morning he sent me his results from Ottawa I did a test and received 54 kbps. That's right...dial up speed. The fact is that we do not demand fast speeds as they have have in other places throughout the world, Europe, many parts of Asia and, yes, Canada. There is a reason for this: no competition. I can speak of Canada because of family there: there are multiple carriers there that will support the frequency the iPhone is on. Here, it is only AT&T. Many report using iPhone on T-Mobile with an unlocked phone, but, as I understand it, you can only used Edge on T-Mobile because of the different frequency. In other words, only 2G speeds.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
MacRumors
May 5, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/05/05/atandt-customers-continuing-to-experience-excessive-dropped-calls/)
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
i love you so much images. i
i love you so much mom.
love you so much lyrics. i
i love u this much cartoon. i
i love you so much pictures. i
I love you very much.
i love you this much. reminded
Free I love you so much my
I Love You So Much by Tenia
I Love You so Much :) Most
I Love You So Much by Melanie
I love you so much I hate you,
Kaka I Love You So Much!
i love you this much quotes.
Love+you+so+much+pictures
Monster Love - I love you this
Post Title → i love you this much
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:16 PM
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
It's not. You don't defend against viruses the way you do against worms the way you do against trojans. The distinction is important as the infection vectors differs and the defense mechanism also differ.
To lump all malware together as some common entity is what doesn't encourage users to adopt safe computer practices, instead relying on the snake oil sold by Intego and other FUD spreaders to "keep them safe".
Know thy enemy.
It's not. You don't defend against viruses the way you do against worms the way you do against trojans. The distinction is important as the infection vectors differs and the defense mechanism also differ.
To lump all malware together as some common entity is what doesn't encourage users to adopt safe computer practices, instead relying on the snake oil sold by Intego and other FUD spreaders to "keep them safe".
Know thy enemy.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 15, 11:47 PM
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
Blue Fox
Apr 22, 07:08 PM
There is a few things
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
Put your Applications folder and user folder in the dock, then right click and change it to a list view. You now have full access to everything on your HD via the user folder in the dock, and the applications folder as well.
remove programs
Remove or uninstall? To remove from the dock, simply click and hold, then drag off, it goes away. To uninstall, drag application from the applications folder to the trash, then empty trash. Or if the specific application came with an uninstaller, you can use that too.
My network places
Network as in available WiFi networks or connected servers? Connected servers will show up in any Finder folder you open up in the sidebar. As far as Wifi, that's in the WiFi symbol on the top menu bar.
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
File > New Tab, OR Command + T, OR right click on the top of the safari window, click "customize toolbar" and add the "New tab" button to your existing buttons.
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
As mentioned above, when you customize your toolbar in Safari, you can always add some other buttons in front of the back/forward buttons to keep from closing it out inadvertently.
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
Put your Applications folder and user folder in the dock, then right click and change it to a list view. You now have full access to everything on your HD via the user folder in the dock, and the applications folder as well.
remove programs
Remove or uninstall? To remove from the dock, simply click and hold, then drag off, it goes away. To uninstall, drag application from the applications folder to the trash, then empty trash. Or if the specific application came with an uninstaller, you can use that too.
My network places
Network as in available WiFi networks or connected servers? Connected servers will show up in any Finder folder you open up in the sidebar. As far as Wifi, that's in the WiFi symbol on the top menu bar.
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
File > New Tab, OR Command + T, OR right click on the top of the safari window, click "customize toolbar" and add the "New tab" button to your existing buttons.
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
As mentioned above, when you customize your toolbar in Safari, you can always add some other buttons in front of the back/forward buttons to keep from closing it out inadvertently.
MadGoat
Apr 24, 02:17 PM
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
You just validated the original point. the fear of death is why people embrace religion to give them hope of an afterlife and immortality so that they don't have to be afraid.
Myself, I'm not afraid of dying, it's something I cannot stop. I'm just afraid of dying too soon.
You just validated the original point. the fear of death is why people embrace religion to give them hope of an afterlife and immortality so that they don't have to be afraid.
Myself, I'm not afraid of dying, it's something I cannot stop. I'm just afraid of dying too soon.
nefan65
May 2, 09:37 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
It's Malware, not a virus. Big difference. Also, it's only related to Safari, WITH Open Safe files after downloading enabled. Otherwise, it requests that you open it, and enter a username/pass for the Admin account...
It's only "Bigger" if you're gullible enough to download it, and install it without checking first...
It's Malware, not a virus. Big difference. Also, it's only related to Safari, WITH Open Safe files after downloading enabled. Otherwise, it requests that you open it, and enter a username/pass for the Admin account...
It's only "Bigger" if you're gullible enough to download it, and install it without checking first...
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:52 PM
Do you mean some Magical force creating Eve from Adam's rib?
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:17 PM
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
Fine, so I can write an installer that will just wipe your user account while you read my EULA and you'll happily execute it because "hey, it's just an installer" ? :rolleyes:
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
Fine, so I can write an installer that will just wipe your user account while you read my EULA and you'll happily execute it because "hey, it's just an installer" ? :rolleyes:
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
henhowc
May 6, 10:20 AM
I don't really get my calls dropped when I'm connected with someone. But I do get a lot of calls where it never rings or registers as a missed call and it just goes straight to voice mail. That's a bit frustrating. I'm in the West Los Angeles area and work in a densely populated college campus so I'm assuming that's probably contributing to the problem.
Dagless
Apr 9, 05:10 AM
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
There are some gems. However it goes without saying that FF3 is a port from a DS game, which is a remake of a NES game. Aralon and NOVA 2 are quite cheap in their quality, neither matching the games they're trying to clone.
Nope, obviously the biggest screen you have is your ipad. The console gaming experience is nothing like the mind numbing games which make the bulk of the App store. Sure there are maybe 20 games that have anything like the look of a console, but touch is no replacement for tactile feedback. Take a peek: Appshopper (http://appshopper.com/iphone/games/)
This is true. I mean, I don't know what kind of gamer I am. I have all the consoles (inc Mac and PC), all the major games, all the games that I've ever been vaguely interested in. I love Team Fortress 2, GTA (barring 4), Pokemon, Mario, HALO 1, Left 4 Dead, Final Fantasy. I bought an iPod touch 4G just for gaming and portable internetting.
So hopefully that quickly gets across what kind of gamer I am; I enjoy games regardless of their manufacturer and developer.
But. There's just something not right with the iPod for gaming. It's got the tech and some good software. I bought around 60 games for it, I have 20-30 for my PSP and DS respectively bought over the course of 6 years. Yet at night when I'm winding down I don't play the iPod - I go to the dedicated consoles. Maybe it's the tactile controls, maybe it's the better speakers, higher quality of games. But something pulls me away from iOS. On-screen butts are not a good way of controlling a game, it's just a reminder that buttons work (for most game genres).
I had to lol at the person who brought up gaming in queues at Costco. That's when I whip out my iPod for a bit of Angry Birds (unlocked the 4 hour achievement last time I played!). :D
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
So I guess you don't watch movies, TV shows, go to the pub/bar, visit museums or browse the inte...
Hmmm ;)
What's it like doing nothing but productivity all day? I tried that for around a year. It brought me really bad RSI and I completely burnt myself out. Not a fun way to live.
There are some gems. However it goes without saying that FF3 is a port from a DS game, which is a remake of a NES game. Aralon and NOVA 2 are quite cheap in their quality, neither matching the games they're trying to clone.
Nope, obviously the biggest screen you have is your ipad. The console gaming experience is nothing like the mind numbing games which make the bulk of the App store. Sure there are maybe 20 games that have anything like the look of a console, but touch is no replacement for tactile feedback. Take a peek: Appshopper (http://appshopper.com/iphone/games/)
This is true. I mean, I don't know what kind of gamer I am. I have all the consoles (inc Mac and PC), all the major games, all the games that I've ever been vaguely interested in. I love Team Fortress 2, GTA (barring 4), Pokemon, Mario, HALO 1, Left 4 Dead, Final Fantasy. I bought an iPod touch 4G just for gaming and portable internetting.
So hopefully that quickly gets across what kind of gamer I am; I enjoy games regardless of their manufacturer and developer.
But. There's just something not right with the iPod for gaming. It's got the tech and some good software. I bought around 60 games for it, I have 20-30 for my PSP and DS respectively bought over the course of 6 years. Yet at night when I'm winding down I don't play the iPod - I go to the dedicated consoles. Maybe it's the tactile controls, maybe it's the better speakers, higher quality of games. But something pulls me away from iOS. On-screen butts are not a good way of controlling a game, it's just a reminder that buttons work (for most game genres).
I had to lol at the person who brought up gaming in queues at Costco. That's when I whip out my iPod for a bit of Angry Birds (unlocked the 4 hour achievement last time I played!). :D
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
So I guess you don't watch movies, TV shows, go to the pub/bar, visit museums or browse the inte...
Hmmm ;)
What's it like doing nothing but productivity all day? I tried that for around a year. It brought me really bad RSI and I completely burnt myself out. Not a fun way to live.
Sodner
Apr 21, 07:30 AM
So this site is for fanboys only?
No HATERS are welcome as well.
No HATERS are welcome as well.
iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 08:26 AM
One of my thoughts on why people follow a religion are that they were raised with it, so it becomes a tradition.
That would not be my word of choice.
Brainwashing or indoctrination comes closer to the mark.
That would not be my word of choice.
Brainwashing or indoctrination comes closer to the mark.
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:35 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
emotion
Sep 20, 09:05 AM
Slightly OT but bear with me.
The Topfield TF5800 (see above) isn't fully HD capable but it's technically possible that it can record HD streams for use on your computer.
In this instance the iTV would be very useful (back on topic now :) ).
The Topfield TF5800 (see above) isn't fully HD capable but it's technically possible that it can record HD streams for use on your computer.
In this instance the iTV would be very useful (back on topic now :) ).
r0k
Apr 11, 09:41 AM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:08 PM
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
danielwsmithee
Aug 29, 11:10 AM
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
gopher
Oct 9, 01:59 PM
Even more interesting was the advertisement from Apple when the Blue and White G3 came out, and how cool the case was when it opened so simply, they said the "Mac was more open-minded." What amazes me though is there are still just as many Windows users who are biggots in this world as Mac users who are, or even more so. Being though in the minority as we are, Mac users feel all the more need to defend themselves against this biggotted crowd. Apple is trying its hardest to level the playing field by its Switch campaign, and show that it is on the same playing field so that Windows users can't ignore us and demean us with lies, fabrications, and these myths. Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose? How do we fight ignorance? I work with PCs only because the job I enjoy the most is run by an organization that is biased against Macs, and I'm not in the position to decide how to move Macs into the organization. But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac. It makes us feel more in the minority and feel more the need to defend ourselves. Let's stop this attrocity. Show them what the Mac can do, and it is a viable solution. And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 10:16 AM
I don't know, I don't have any answers. It's easier to destroy than create.
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Post Title → i love you this much
