mdriftmeyer
Apr 12, 11:19 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Grow some perspective.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 08:47 PM
Alex you have made some very cogent points. I hope someone at Apple will listen.
awmazz
Mar 12, 03:12 AM
Explosion reported at Fukushima plant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
Oh cr*p. The headline is 'huge explosion'.
I think it's clearly time to start making comparisons with Chernobyl and discussing how widespread the radiation damage is now potentially gong to be rather than praising how Japanese reactors are different to Soviet ones. That huge cloud of smoke is enough to tell anyone expert or not that this is already way beyond just getting backup cooling diesel generators operational again - we're witnessing a massive disaster genuine bona fide China Syndrome meltdown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
Oh cr*p. The headline is 'huge explosion'.
I think it's clearly time to start making comparisons with Chernobyl and discussing how widespread the radiation damage is now potentially gong to be rather than praising how Japanese reactors are different to Soviet ones. That huge cloud of smoke is enough to tell anyone expert or not that this is already way beyond just getting backup cooling diesel generators operational again - we're witnessing a massive disaster genuine bona fide China Syndrome meltdown.
mcrain
Mar 16, 12:35 PM
Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
lifeinhd
Apr 9, 09:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure there are people who game on their iPads but also game on consoles, as well as people who game on iPads but also use their iPads for stuff they used to do mostly on their computers.
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure there are people who game on their iPads but also game on consoles, as well as people who game on iPads but also use their iPads for stuff they used to do mostly on their computers.
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
srxtr
Apr 20, 06:56 PM
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
+1
+1
koobcamuk
Apr 9, 01:15 AM
Oops. Looks like someone hasn't visited the App Store in like, never.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
I used to have an iPhone, and I like a few of the games for it. I even liked playing them on my iPad.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
I used to have an iPhone, and I like a few of the games for it. I even liked playing them on my iPad.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 12:49 PM
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :D
Liquorpuki
Mar 16, 01:18 PM
1/ Oil is relevant to electricity generation as we move forwards with more use of hybrids/electric vehicles. Using nuclear and renewables we have a chance to offset oil burning vehicles with non-fossil fuel power. Powering those electric vehicles off coal generated electricity limits their effectiveness.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
Mousse
Apr 26, 12:19 PM
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
EricNau
Apr 25, 12:02 AM
The ACT test is like the SAT but for the middle of America. I got 36* and literally only studied the day before.
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:08 PM
Most of Punjab belongs to Pakistan, not India. But yes, in the Indian part of Punjab, I'm sure that most honour-killings are not within Muslim families.
Hence I suggest that it is not purely religion based.
Hence I suggest that it is not purely religion based.
GGJstudios
Apr 13, 03:16 PM
I'm sure this has been mentioned.
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
FAT32 (File Allocation Table)
Royal wedding cake
McVitie#39;s: Royal Wedding Cake
The Royal Wedding Cake Recipe
The Royal Wedding: Prince
Royal Wedding Biscuit Cake
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
FAT32 (File Allocation Table)
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:47 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 11:45 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
awmazz
Mar 14, 02:01 PM
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
skunk
Mar 14, 06:08 PM
If you're talking about energy consumption, yeah, and that's primarily because of oil. If you're talking about electricity consumption, we're actually not that bad.I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
sjo
Aug 29, 12:48 PM
As a Norwegian I can say that Apple has way more credibility than Greenpeace over here. We have seen what they are all about. Greenpeace is a bunch of spoiled city kids that has no idea what nature is.
Yeah, cause you just HAVE to hunt whales and eat whalemeat in Norway in order to survive, such a poor country with poor people. How dare Greenpeace oppose your ancient way of life?
Yeah, cause you just HAVE to hunt whales and eat whalemeat in Norway in order to survive, such a poor country with poor people. How dare Greenpeace oppose your ancient way of life?
Macinposh
Oct 26, 04:36 AM
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:49 PM
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
Lesser Evets
Apr 28, 01:10 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:57 PM
And you can swap 'em right in. If Apple doesn't release a Mac Pro upgrade with some other goodies (I'm personally hoping for DDR2, as the 8GB of goofy RAM in my Mac Pro cost me an arm and a leg.) I'm just going to buy a couple quad core chips and toss them in my machine.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
No comments:
Post a Comment