wnurse
Mar 19, 11:02 PM
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
TripHop
Apr 12, 11:48 PM
Might be great down the road, but something tells me my FCP7 will be plenty useful for at least the next couple years.So if you upgrade to the new Final Cut Studio which includes the new Final Cut Pro 7 for $299 will Final Cut Pro X be a free upgrade or what? :confused:
Never mind. Apple still has a NEW corner on the FCP page and my Zite just posted a 21 month old Apple press release as if it was news. :rolleyes:
Never mind. Apple still has a NEW corner on the FCP page and my Zite just posted a 21 month old Apple press release as if it was news. :rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 11:37 PM
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
FreeState, have you read the note I posted a link to the same video you posted, the one about what Spitzer says about Focus on the Family? I don't know why FOF neglected to mention how rarely sexual-orientation changes. But I think Dobson's organization should have mentioned that rarity.
FreeState, have you read the note I posted a link to the same video you posted, the one about what Spitzer says about Focus on the Family? I don't know why FOF neglected to mention how rarely sexual-orientation changes. But I think Dobson's organization should have mentioned that rarity.
shawnce
Jul 12, 11:44 AM
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
asphalt-proof
Sep 21, 10:40 AM
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
chirpie
Apr 13, 11:01 AM
I don't get the "imovie pro" comments. From the announcement, does it look like functionality is removed? What specifically would make this new version less pro than the previous.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
haircuts 2011, Short Hair
2011 cute short haircut for
Short Hairstyles For Women
trendy short hairstyles 2010-
Short Hairstyles 2011,
cool short haircuts for women
very short hairstyles 2011
formal hairstyles 2011 for
2011 Short Hairstyles Trends
Short Hairstyle For women 2011
Reacent Post
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
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.
Multimedia
Oct 14, 12:31 PM
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.I may have jumped the gun. Maybe it's not too much more. When I look at the published price of each 3GHz Woodcrest $851 and each 2.33GHz Clovertown $851, I can live with +$800 for either upgrade. ;)Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited. And each 2.66GHz Clovertown is published as $1172 so I'm surmising a + $1100 - $3599 - could be expected for top of the line Fall '06 8-Core Mac Pro - only $300 more than last year's Quad G5. :eek:
Plus once Clovertown ships, seems like Intel would begin lowering the price of Woodcrest to their customers as well. So I think you may be right. Wouldn't hurt. :p
Ain't technological progress astounding and fun? :D
Plus once Clovertown ships, seems like Intel would begin lowering the price of Woodcrest to their customers as well. So I think you may be right. Wouldn't hurt. :p
Ain't technological progress astounding and fun? :D
Slurpy2k8
Apr 9, 03:52 AM
Wait? There's no need to wait. You are doing yourself a disservice. Do yourself a favor. Go to one of your friends houses, one with a PS3 or Xbox and at least a 37 inch TV. Play Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia. Come back and tell us what's the difference.
Some us have lifestyles in which we are more than content with the entertainment selection on iOS devices-myself included. I don't have time, not desire to invest in playing games over long periods of time in a sedentary fashion. I play a game when want to clear my mind a bit, or kill time. I don't go invest huge amount of money and make that a goal, because frankly Id rather spend my time in a myriad of other ways. The vast majority of the population share my mindset. iOS devices not being 'HARDCORZ' enough is not going to hurt Apple. That market is shrinking, not expanding.
Some us have lifestyles in which we are more than content with the entertainment selection on iOS devices-myself included. I don't have time, not desire to invest in playing games over long periods of time in a sedentary fashion. I play a game when want to clear my mind a bit, or kill time. I don't go invest huge amount of money and make that a goal, because frankly Id rather spend my time in a myriad of other ways. The vast majority of the population share my mindset. iOS devices not being 'HARDCORZ' enough is not going to hurt Apple. That market is shrinking, not expanding.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:02 AM
You're entitled to your own beliefs. You're not entitled to your own facts, however.
It's not "up to each person to decide, and make true in their own lives." God either exists or not; full stop. Even if it were "up to each person", how does telling other people that they will burn in hell for their beliefs fit in with this? If it's a personal thing, then KEEP IT PERSONAL.
Nothing is wrong with expressing such personal beliefs...as evident we are all doing right now :rolleyes: the only thing I think is requisite is a tone of civility...I don't think MacVault's paste of scripture was equivalent to a personal opinion of hatred. But then again, that last part was one of those silly "opinion" things :p
Anyhoo, Ive got to bump this thread...we should get back to complaining about Apple's GPU choices :D
What about the ugly kids?
Plastic surgery? :D
It's not "up to each person to decide, and make true in their own lives." God either exists or not; full stop. Even if it were "up to each person", how does telling other people that they will burn in hell for their beliefs fit in with this? If it's a personal thing, then KEEP IT PERSONAL.
Nothing is wrong with expressing such personal beliefs...as evident we are all doing right now :rolleyes: the only thing I think is requisite is a tone of civility...I don't think MacVault's paste of scripture was equivalent to a personal opinion of hatred. But then again, that last part was one of those silly "opinion" things :p
Anyhoo, Ive got to bump this thread...we should get back to complaining about Apple's GPU choices :D
What about the ugly kids?
Plastic surgery? :D
ShavenYak
Sep 20, 01:19 PM
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
aristobrat
Feb 16, 03:45 PM
The Android Marketplace is still relatively new.
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 01:08 PM
You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system.
By living in this country I am bound by its laws. Period, full stop. Why is protest only allowed if you make it public and go to jail? The most public display of protest I am aware of is the 50+% of people who do not vote in any election. You might think their protest is foolish, but by not participating in the sham they speak volumes for those who listen.
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of. It is like "terrorism", it is 100% dependent on what side of the argument you are on. The USA has directly killed far more people than these so-called terrorists. Many who are on the side of the USA do not see this. This does not make those who disagree with the USA supporters of "terror", it simply means they disagree with the logic - and laws - of the USA.
Breaking DRM is no different. If you agree with the laws you speak of how important it is to follow them. If you don't agree you justify your actions in a myriad of way. Everyone is subject to the "law" however just or unjust the law may be.
By living in this country I am bound by its laws. Period, full stop. Why is protest only allowed if you make it public and go to jail? The most public display of protest I am aware of is the 50+% of people who do not vote in any election. You might think their protest is foolish, but by not participating in the sham they speak volumes for those who listen.
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of. It is like "terrorism", it is 100% dependent on what side of the argument you are on. The USA has directly killed far more people than these so-called terrorists. Many who are on the side of the USA do not see this. This does not make those who disagree with the USA supporters of "terror", it simply means they disagree with the logic - and laws - of the USA.
Breaking DRM is no different. If you agree with the laws you speak of how important it is to follow them. If you don't agree you justify your actions in a myriad of way. Everyone is subject to the "law" however just or unjust the law may be.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 06:05 PM
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
JustAGuy
Oct 12, 05:05 PM
Hi all, just thought that I'd compile and run the tests on my G4/450 and PIII/733 for comparison. VERY interesting results. I had to change the i value from 20,000 down to 5,000 to save time...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
CTYankee
Oct 26, 03:02 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
jamesbjenkins
May 12, 11:14 AM
The ONLY reason I'm ATT is the iPhone. I get dropped calls all the time, billing issues out the yin-yang, terrible customer service who I can't even understand 75% of the time.......the list goes on.
I know it's not only ATT, but the notion that I have to pay an additional $20/month for SMS when I already pay those *$%&#^%s $30/month for "unlimited" data. WTF about it is unlimited if I can't send text messages (read: data) as part of the package. It's legalized robbery. I wish the other major carriers would follow Sprint's lead of the $69/month truly unlimited plan.
I wish I could do something worse than just leave ATT...like crap in a UPS box and ship it to their home office.
I swear I will leave ATT the very instant the iPhone becomes available on Verizon or Sprint. I'd really prefer Sprint, but Verizon will do.
ATT has been riding the iPhone train for almost 3 years, knowing that people will put up with their crappy service and other misc BS because they want the iPhone bad enough. It just makes me sick. I hope they go bankrupt when they lose the exclusivity on the iPhone. Booooo.
I know it's not only ATT, but the notion that I have to pay an additional $20/month for SMS when I already pay those *$%&#^%s $30/month for "unlimited" data. WTF about it is unlimited if I can't send text messages (read: data) as part of the package. It's legalized robbery. I wish the other major carriers would follow Sprint's lead of the $69/month truly unlimited plan.
I wish I could do something worse than just leave ATT...like crap in a UPS box and ship it to their home office.
I swear I will leave ATT the very instant the iPhone becomes available on Verizon or Sprint. I'd really prefer Sprint, but Verizon will do.
ATT has been riding the iPhone train for almost 3 years, knowing that people will put up with their crappy service and other misc BS because they want the iPhone bad enough. It just makes me sick. I hope they go bankrupt when they lose the exclusivity on the iPhone. Booooo.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 04:47 AM
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
Well�we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don�t have to go there. :p
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
nagromme
Jul 14, 02:28 PM
A new case would be "fun" but what I care about is what it delivers, not how it looks when I crawl under my desk :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 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.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
0 comments:
Post a Comment