takao
Mar 14, 12:31 PM
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
appleguy123
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
Well now, I don't think being an atheist actually entails anything. I certainly don't do anything specific related to it, but I know what you mean :).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
I actually like being questioned. More on my scientific ideas, but religious ones too. For me, it is the best way to learn.
Others around me aren't this way. We'll be having what I think is an intellectual discussion, and the next moment my friend's shouting at me. It's weird to think about holding any ideal sacred(a
Though it wouldn't have been when I was a fundamentalist :eek:).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
I actually like being questioned. More on my scientific ideas, but religious ones too. For me, it is the best way to learn.
Others around me aren't this way. We'll be having what I think is an intellectual discussion, and the next moment my friend's shouting at me. It's weird to think about holding any ideal sacred(a
Though it wouldn't have been when I was a fundamentalist :eek:).
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:16 PM
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:24 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
All the details have been spoon fed to us for months by generous meembers here. I see no excuse for not know the differences by now and why what belongs where.
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
All the details have been spoon fed to us for months by generous meembers here. I see no excuse for not know the differences by now and why what belongs where.
deputy_doofy
Apr 21, 07:54 AM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
backinblack875
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Multimedia
Sep 27, 08:37 PM
Surprised to see this thread come to a grinding hault after only 145 posts. I pledge right here and now to be one of the first to buy a NEW 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as soon as it becomes available. I will not wait for them to go refrub although I will probably wait for them to come with iLife '07 if they are added to the BTO page before the January 9th SteveNote.
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
javajedi
Oct 11, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:12 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
NT1440
Apr 24, 06:06 PM
"interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes."
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
chrismacguy
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Theres also a lovely massive gaping hole in the Catholic "Invisible God who must exist because 1st Century Nomads who couldn't work out keeping toilet and food separate was a smart idea said he did" view of things:
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
noservice2001
Sep 26, 01:32 AM
so can i expect a quad core macbook pro soon?
torbjoern
Apr 23, 09:54 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
javajedi
Oct 13, 05:56 PM
yeah, that's certianly possible. I'm not sure if that is or is not the case, but wouldn't be suprised if it is. I'll find out.
Piggie
Apr 9, 07:15 PM
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:32 PM
$50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:52 PM
Wow, a TON OF YOU totally miss the iTV purpose, to stream content FROM YOUR MAC! That's why no tuner, no storage, no anything!! Does Airport Express have storage, an antenna, etc?!? NO!!!
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:26 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
deputy_doofy
Apr 12, 10:47 AM
You could always buy a Mac and run windows on it. It would let you satisfy your curiosity, and have a safe fallback to the OS you know. And a beautiful computer.
THIS. You can legally run both (assuming you have a copy of Windows to install) and you can both learn the Mac AND have Windows as your safety net. With Bootcamp, Windows runs natively, fully utilizing the hardware, its graphics, etc.
THIS. You can legally run both (assuming you have a copy of Windows to install) and you can both learn the Mac AND have Windows as your safety net. With Bootcamp, Windows runs natively, fully utilizing the hardware, its graphics, etc.
kdarling
Jun 1, 12:36 AM
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
ShavenYak
Sep 20, 12:27 PM
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
... Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
Perhaps what Apple should do is have two types of TV "season passes" - one at the current price point (or perhaps slightly cheaper) that gives you the episodes permanently, and one that's substantially cheaper ($4.99 per season or thereabouts?) where the shows expire after a period of time, or a certain number of viewings.
They'd also need to have the shows available to start streaming as soon as they are broadcast - a lot of people aren't interested in buying them after the fact because they want to be able to talk about the show areound the water cooler at work the next day.
A setup like that, and I'd think about dropping cable like a bad habit. The only catch is live sporting events. Unless Apple could capture those broadcasts and begin streaming them to subscribers in real time.... imagine a season pass for your favorite team. The pro leagues would be tough negotiators, but colleges would probably jump at the prospect of having all their football games available on iTunes and getting a cut of the action.
... Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
Perhaps what Apple should do is have two types of TV "season passes" - one at the current price point (or perhaps slightly cheaper) that gives you the episodes permanently, and one that's substantially cheaper ($4.99 per season or thereabouts?) where the shows expire after a period of time, or a certain number of viewings.
They'd also need to have the shows available to start streaming as soon as they are broadcast - a lot of people aren't interested in buying them after the fact because they want to be able to talk about the show areound the water cooler at work the next day.
A setup like that, and I'd think about dropping cable like a bad habit. The only catch is live sporting events. Unless Apple could capture those broadcasts and begin streaming them to subscribers in real time.... imagine a season pass for your favorite team. The pro leagues would be tough negotiators, but colleges would probably jump at the prospect of having all their football games available on iTunes and getting a cut of the action.
Toneaphone
Feb 25, 03:39 PM
Even though Android has more potential users, they will never be as successful as the iPhone until they improve their app capabilities. Once they do this, developers will make better apps and games, and customers will buy more. It ultimately boils down to the degree of consumption per user rather than the quantity of potential customers. One person can easily install 150+ apps for the iPhone in no time. Over 3 billion apps have been downloaded to date...It will be an extremely long time until Android meets that milestone.
darkplanets
Mar 11, 06:38 PM
And this is why we have passive cooling and shutdown systems, so you don't have to rely on mechanical means for core safety. It is my understanding that these reactors should have control rods to pretty much kill the core, however since it's a BWR that doesn't mean the heat will stop. I'll bet money that the safety systems aren't up to par, and since these were constructed in the 80's there certainly isn't any passive control systems.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:57 PM
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.
go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.
do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.
we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"
anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.
each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.
go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.
do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.
we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"
anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment