firestarter
Mar 13, 01:21 PM
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:37 PM
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
Theists no doubt shake their heads and think atheists are fools for closing their minds/hearts/whatever.
Again, how can you prove something that (in theory) exists outside of time and space? In fact, you could say God doesn't exist (in time and space, which is all that matters). But you can't prove he doesn't exist, and you can only prove his existence using reason, which is what Aquinas attempted in his Summa Theologica and Anselm through his Ontological Argument, and many others besides.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
Theists no doubt shake their heads and think atheists are fools for closing their minds/hearts/whatever.
Again, how can you prove something that (in theory) exists outside of time and space? In fact, you could say God doesn't exist (in time and space, which is all that matters). But you can't prove he doesn't exist, and you can only prove his existence using reason, which is what Aquinas attempted in his Summa Theologica and Anselm through his Ontological Argument, and many others besides.
AppliedVisual
Oct 11, 06:22 PM
Hmph... I haven't been to the Dell forums in a while or I probably wouldv'e seen that. Oh, well. Already ordered my other 30" display the other day, I'm not going to complain. :cool:
franswa za
Apr 9, 02:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
koobcamuk
Apr 8, 11:24 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:39 AM
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini)
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:37 PM
I'm sure there are many, many more.
Acceptable collateral damage for Big Business.
I'm sure none of the big-wigs had any problems.
Acceptable collateral damage for Big Business.
I'm sure none of the big-wigs had any problems.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:34 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:33 AM
Hardcore Gamer? You've lost your way.
Hehe. You're funny.
Hardcore gaming is playing a lot of games, the hardware bragging & taxonomy of gamers is a penis envy thing.
I'm off to play with my 9.7 incher.
Hehe. You're funny.
Hardcore gaming is playing a lot of games, the hardware bragging & taxonomy of gamers is a penis envy thing.
I'm off to play with my 9.7 incher.
Fiveos22
Jul 11, 10:53 PM
mmm, AppleInsider vs. Thinksecret
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
Pilgrim1099
Apr 9, 03:36 PM
Go away? i didn't say that.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
The problem with your view is that Nintendo is a JAPANESE corporation and they are still the boss over the USA counterpart. Apple has to kiss Japan's ass first to do that. I heard a very old story from the 1990s that Microsoft tried to buy them out which Nintendo of Japan's CEO, at the time, discussed and revealed in an interview.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
The problem with your view is that Nintendo is a JAPANESE corporation and they are still the boss over the USA counterpart. Apple has to kiss Japan's ass first to do that. I heard a very old story from the 1990s that Microsoft tried to buy them out which Nintendo of Japan's CEO, at the time, discussed and revealed in an interview.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 03:14 PM
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Groovey
Aug 29, 06:03 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
Something like that. They probably put pretty much weight on iPod's battery issues together with their sales amount. Waiting for that green-colored "Limited Edition Greenpeace iPod".
Something like that. They probably put pretty much weight on iPod's battery issues together with their sales amount. Waiting for that green-colored "Limited Edition Greenpeace iPod".
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:30 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
spacemanspifff
Apr 6, 10:14 AM
Good stuff, Spaceman, very helpful.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Probably the best place to start is on Apples own site, check out:
http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/what-is-macosx/
I used to run Apple training courses for people switching from Windows to Mac and most people were very surprised how little was different. Remember Windows is a copy of the original Mac OS. Microsoft Word was a Mac app before it was available on a PC! Bill Gates only wrote windows because Apple wouldn't licence their system to run on the IBM systems of the day.
You won't really see the differences until you get to use the Mac yourself. But when you do, the best thing to do is just go with it. Don't try to think - how would a PC do this, just think - if I wanted to do this how would I logically do it and you'll find that 9 x out of 10 that is the way it "just works!"
Apple have designed the Mac OS to be very powerful, but also to get out of your way, there is a reason that they don't supply a manual with the Mac - you don't need one, it really is that good. Most users only scratch the surface of what the Mac OS can do [which is fine] and a lot of PC switchers fail to find the more productive features because they tend to think 'Oh the Mac doesn't do that' when it usually does. You just have to be prepared to change the way you do some things [usually for the better] and you'll be fine.
If you get stuck click the Help menu item and go from there. If you're still suck ask a question here, I'm sure we'll help out if we can.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Probably the best place to start is on Apples own site, check out:
http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/what-is-macosx/
I used to run Apple training courses for people switching from Windows to Mac and most people were very surprised how little was different. Remember Windows is a copy of the original Mac OS. Microsoft Word was a Mac app before it was available on a PC! Bill Gates only wrote windows because Apple wouldn't licence their system to run on the IBM systems of the day.
You won't really see the differences until you get to use the Mac yourself. But when you do, the best thing to do is just go with it. Don't try to think - how would a PC do this, just think - if I wanted to do this how would I logically do it and you'll find that 9 x out of 10 that is the way it "just works!"
Apple have designed the Mac OS to be very powerful, but also to get out of your way, there is a reason that they don't supply a manual with the Mac - you don't need one, it really is that good. Most users only scratch the surface of what the Mac OS can do [which is fine] and a lot of PC switchers fail to find the more productive features because they tend to think 'Oh the Mac doesn't do that' when it usually does. You just have to be prepared to change the way you do some things [usually for the better] and you'll be fine.
If you get stuck click the Help menu item and go from there. If you're still suck ask a question here, I'm sure we'll help out if we can.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
You do realize that we live in a capitalist culture right, one of the greatest consumerist cultures to have ever existed on this planet. Do you honestly believe that purchased content, free of commercials, is going to work? It was all fine and dandy when it was Apple stopping file sharing but when it's Apple honing in on the terrain of a multi-billion dollar advertising system, they're going to face significantly more resistance. And that's why cable and satellite television aren't going away anytime soon. Either that, or you can expect to see commerials coming to your iTunes downloads in the future.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
68164
Sep 25, 12:37 AM
After viewing the ShowTime presentation, it is clear as clear can be that iTV will require either a Mac or PC to function - the whole focus of Steve's talk and demo on iTV was about how to get the stuff from your computer to your TV.
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
AJsAWiz
Sep 18, 07:37 AM
Add me to the excessive dropped call list, keep getting them randomly over the passed two weeks at my house. I'm going to call AT&T today, hopefully score a MicroCell.
Well, I've been calling AT&T continuously (have had this problem for about a year now) and have gone the entire gamut of troubleshooting solutions (some I've done twice) but the dropped calls and weak signals prevail. AT&T wants to accept zero responsibility for these issues nor do they seem to be either willing or able to fix the dropped call/weak signal issues.
SO, in a nutshell . . . . good luck with that. Hope you are more successful in your attempts. Then you could come back and share the magic formula :)
Well, I've been calling AT&T continuously (have had this problem for about a year now) and have gone the entire gamut of troubleshooting solutions (some I've done twice) but the dropped calls and weak signals prevail. AT&T wants to accept zero responsibility for these issues nor do they seem to be either willing or able to fix the dropped call/weak signal issues.
SO, in a nutshell . . . . good luck with that. Hope you are more successful in your attempts. Then you could come back and share the magic formula :)
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:58 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
MacMyDay
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
OllyW
Apr 28, 01:27 PM
It would help the iPad, in the manner you are describing it, if, like an Android/Honeycomb tablet it was a machine in it's own right.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
Ugg
Apr 15, 11:10 AM
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
That's what's so sad. Victims are victims no matter where they live.
One thing I find encouraging is that so many social moderates are coming out and saying, "Hey, enough of the gayness already." That means that the message is finally getting across.
It will take more videos, more personal appeals by "real" people but I think we're finally at a point where being gay is ok.
It's sad that caliber can't see it that way. I think he's simply too young to understand what a struggle it has been since Stonewall.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
That's what's so sad. Victims are victims no matter where they live.
One thing I find encouraging is that so many social moderates are coming out and saying, "Hey, enough of the gayness already." That means that the message is finally getting across.
It will take more videos, more personal appeals by "real" people but I think we're finally at a point where being gay is ok.
It's sad that caliber can't see it that way. I think he's simply too young to understand what a struggle it has been since Stonewall.
charliehustle
Nov 6, 04:41 PM
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment