CalBoy
Apr 22, 08:35 PM
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
LaDirection
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
Excellent initiative.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 01:24 AM
I made a joke before about what the hell anyone would need with 8 cores, but the truth is that I've been doing so much simultaneous photo, PS/InD, video at work this past couple weeks that I'm constantly taxing the 2GHz dual G5 w/ 4.5GB of RAM.. I mean like grinding it to a halt. Same with my MacBook, and don't even get me started on my iMac G5 Rev C.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
Trash Can
Jun 19, 06:44 PM
panzer06,
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 12:28 PM
I agree with WestonHarvey1. The lifestyle of the Catholic and that of a member of the LGBT community is not easily reconcilable, if at all. Then again, it's not reconconcilable with an ever increasing portion of the population so I feel the problem lies with the church, and not the community at large. Shame how such a noble project has been pulled OT by religion but it does tend to do sh:t like this.
Rocketman
Sep 26, 01:12 PM
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
hcho3
Apr 20, 05:13 PM
LTE is still not available on many areas in the US. Only Verizon has it. The first chipsets will have bugs and battery life issues. It's clear that apple doesn't want to try out first generation LTE chipsets.
One analyst asked about iPhone 5 release date and Tim was like, "Dude, we don't comment on future products because all of those copycats are going to copy. In fact, they are probably listening to this conference right now. So, we are not going to say anything."
One analyst asked about iPhone 5 release date and Tim was like, "Dude, we don't comment on future products because all of those copycats are going to copy. In fact, they are probably listening to this conference right now. So, we are not going to say anything."
BJNY
Nov 1, 05:14 PM
If one follows the link,
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
So it seems from the coverage that the device has no optical drive, and no internal mass storage? Is that correct? And also that it is not itself a DVR? Don't get me wrong -- I'm reserving judgment. I just want to understand at this point. It sounds as if the basic purpose of the device is to draw high quality AV off a computer and onto a home entertainment system, sort of as the Roku SoundBridge did for the iPod's audio, but in a very Apple sort of way? In other words, it follows the computer-centric sort of model where a desktop or notebook Mac on the network is the "server"?
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 02:22 PM
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
From what I heard, it wasn't the quake that was the problem, it was the Tsunami that destroyed the backup generators that were supposed to maintain the cooling system. After that the cooling system defaulted to battery power, which drained within 8 hours. After that the overheating started.
I think if the engineers who designed the plant paid as much attention to protecting the backup generators as they did to protecting the reactors, there'd be no issues right now.
From what I heard, it wasn't the quake that was the problem, it was the Tsunami that destroyed the backup generators that were supposed to maintain the cooling system. After that the cooling system defaulted to battery power, which drained within 8 hours. After that the overheating started.
I think if the engineers who designed the plant paid as much attention to protecting the backup generators as they did to protecting the reactors, there'd be no issues right now.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
MagnusVonMagnum
May 4, 02:39 PM
You're making a huge assumption that the people who vote on posts are the same people who are posting in a thread.
No, I'm making an assumption that fanboys are voting down all the anti-Apple posts in droves. Whether they have posted in the thread is completely irrelevant. The point is you don't see people voting in droves for logical posts, but you do see negative votes in any post that speaks either for Microsoft or against Apple, regardless of the content of that message. That implies emotional reaction which implies fanaticism. You can argue semantics, but 1+1 still equals 2. Sherlock Holmes didn't have to do a poll to figure things out.
Osama Bin Laden Arsenal US.
osama bin laden arsenal fan.
osama bin laden arsenal fan.
osama bin laden arsenal fan.
osama bin laden arsenal fan.
Latest Osama Bin Laden Video.
Abuse of the Arsenal fans#39; not
No, I'm making an assumption that fanboys are voting down all the anti-Apple posts in droves. Whether they have posted in the thread is completely irrelevant. The point is you don't see people voting in droves for logical posts, but you do see negative votes in any post that speaks either for Microsoft or against Apple, regardless of the content of that message. That implies emotional reaction which implies fanaticism. You can argue semantics, but 1+1 still equals 2. Sherlock Holmes didn't have to do a poll to figure things out.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
<snip>
Kevin
That was me. :)
Thanks. See above post for my results. I even ported your Java code to C# (so similar, it scared me!) and got slightly lower numbers.
8152, 8151, 8162, 8142, 8172, 8142, 8161, 8152... all for a final average of 8154.25.
[edit: whoa, recently got 7891... running it more to average]
[edit #2: 7891, 7892, 7902, 7891, 7882, 7892, 7882, 7881... all for a final average of 7889.125]
You may have the source code/binary to test on your Windows computer (or Linux, with Mono; or BSD, with Microsoft's ROTOR)--just give me a hoot.
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
<snip>
Kevin
That was me. :)
Thanks. See above post for my results. I even ported your Java code to C# (so similar, it scared me!) and got slightly lower numbers.
8152, 8151, 8162, 8142, 8172, 8142, 8161, 8152... all for a final average of 8154.25.
[edit: whoa, recently got 7891... running it more to average]
[edit #2: 7891, 7892, 7902, 7891, 7882, 7892, 7882, 7881... all for a final average of 7889.125]
You may have the source code/binary to test on your Windows computer (or Linux, with Mono; or BSD, with Microsoft's ROTOR)--just give me a hoot.
XjeffX
May 5, 04:54 PM
I would be thrilled if only 4.5% of my calls were dropped. While I don't use talk on the phone much, nearly 50% of my calls end up dropping at some point.
AppliedVisual
Oct 31, 11:59 PM
Sorry for the noob question, but does anyone know how well Maya 7 will scale with 8 cores? My buddy is debating whether to buy a single Kentsfield or step up to dual Clovertons. He has a freelance business in which he uses Maya 7 quite a bit. Thanks.
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 09:37 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
manu chao
Mar 19, 11:50 AM
By using Jon's tool, you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY are violating an agreement that you yourself agreed to.
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
jctevere
Aug 28, 07:51 AM
I have consistently had problems with dropped calls ever since I switched from the original iPhone to the iPhone 3GS, they replaced my phone twice because of it. It would work for a while, but then drop calls, or get 10 call failures before actually placing a call, just to be dropped minutes later...
Yesterday I finally upgraded to 4.0.2 and it is even worse! Not only do I barely get any signal in my house, even when it shows I have a signal it still doesn't work. The problem seems to be when it goes into sleep mode it disconnects, because when I unlock it, a swarm of text messages and voice mails from missed calls I never received pour in...
I finally called up AT&T to see if there was anything they could do (maybe give me one of the femtocells to keep my 5 iPhone family plan happy (bill is almost $300 a month)... I was greeted by an unfriendly and unhelpful customer service agent. She pretty much told me there was nothing she could do (and when I asked about the femtocell she had no idea what it was, didn't even offer for me to buy it), and then she said its just the network, it happens to her all the time, I am probably in an area with poor coverage.
I told her to look it up on the AT&T coverage map it shows "best coverage" all around my house and where I live, pretty much most of Long Island. To which she said "coverage is not at all guaranteed", I flipped a bird and said "what the fu*k does that even mean, so I can get an at&t phone and pay for the service and you can't even guarantee I get service in any location around the world, even if you advertise it" to which she responded "yup". And I said, that's just ridiculous, I might as well switch to a carrier such as sprint or verizion (my parents have one of each) and they get service in our household. And then she said "Go ahead and switch". I don't remember exactly what I said after that, but she followed with other dumb remarks, such as, it could just be what your house is made of, or do you live underground? I'm sure I live in a cave lady... But I really can't bash all the Customer service agents at AT&T, some are great and very helpful.
Never the less, I was very pissed and disappointed with how AT&T is handling itself. Never have I had such poor customer service. When I had nextel and complained about their crappy service, they were very apologetic and offered me free stuff, and even if I never mentioned dropping them, but even hinted at the possibility, they would offer me upgrades and the works just to keep me... AT&T is just hit or miss, when the network works, its great and super fast, but if your in a high traffic or any other area, its the pits... Which is why I think people on the forums have such a hard time understanding these complaints. I bet the reason for the big change in satisfaction surveys has to do with geographic location. When I was in any other state but NY the service worked when it said I had service, but even then I could have full service, travel 10ft and get No service to show up on the iPhone, very spotty at best.
I am definitely going to switch my entire family plan over to verizion when our contracts are up in a year, I really hope they get the iPhone, if not, droid here I come! But to the rest of the community, has this ever happened to anyone else but me? Should I call back AT&T, at this point I would be willing to buy the femtocell, my phone doesn't work in passive mode, only gets service when I am on it and unlocked.
EDIT:
I actually looked up the femtocell, which is now called microcell to make sure I wasn't going crazy and to see if it is available in my area (which it is), and I saw a video that I just find hilarious! If you go to the following link and click on "increased signal strength" in the interactive video that loads on AT&T website for the microcell, it starts to play a video that actually shows how crappy their service is, with the guy having to hang out of the window to make a call... WTF? AT&T should fire whoever makes their commercials...
Check it out: http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/why/3gmicrocell/
Yesterday I finally upgraded to 4.0.2 and it is even worse! Not only do I barely get any signal in my house, even when it shows I have a signal it still doesn't work. The problem seems to be when it goes into sleep mode it disconnects, because when I unlock it, a swarm of text messages and voice mails from missed calls I never received pour in...
I finally called up AT&T to see if there was anything they could do (maybe give me one of the femtocells to keep my 5 iPhone family plan happy (bill is almost $300 a month)... I was greeted by an unfriendly and unhelpful customer service agent. She pretty much told me there was nothing she could do (and when I asked about the femtocell she had no idea what it was, didn't even offer for me to buy it), and then she said its just the network, it happens to her all the time, I am probably in an area with poor coverage.
I told her to look it up on the AT&T coverage map it shows "best coverage" all around my house and where I live, pretty much most of Long Island. To which she said "coverage is not at all guaranteed", I flipped a bird and said "what the fu*k does that even mean, so I can get an at&t phone and pay for the service and you can't even guarantee I get service in any location around the world, even if you advertise it" to which she responded "yup". And I said, that's just ridiculous, I might as well switch to a carrier such as sprint or verizion (my parents have one of each) and they get service in our household. And then she said "Go ahead and switch". I don't remember exactly what I said after that, but she followed with other dumb remarks, such as, it could just be what your house is made of, or do you live underground? I'm sure I live in a cave lady... But I really can't bash all the Customer service agents at AT&T, some are great and very helpful.
Never the less, I was very pissed and disappointed with how AT&T is handling itself. Never have I had such poor customer service. When I had nextel and complained about their crappy service, they were very apologetic and offered me free stuff, and even if I never mentioned dropping them, but even hinted at the possibility, they would offer me upgrades and the works just to keep me... AT&T is just hit or miss, when the network works, its great and super fast, but if your in a high traffic or any other area, its the pits... Which is why I think people on the forums have such a hard time understanding these complaints. I bet the reason for the big change in satisfaction surveys has to do with geographic location. When I was in any other state but NY the service worked when it said I had service, but even then I could have full service, travel 10ft and get No service to show up on the iPhone, very spotty at best.
I am definitely going to switch my entire family plan over to verizion when our contracts are up in a year, I really hope they get the iPhone, if not, droid here I come! But to the rest of the community, has this ever happened to anyone else but me? Should I call back AT&T, at this point I would be willing to buy the femtocell, my phone doesn't work in passive mode, only gets service when I am on it and unlocked.
EDIT:
I actually looked up the femtocell, which is now called microcell to make sure I wasn't going crazy and to see if it is available in my area (which it is), and I saw a video that I just find hilarious! If you go to the following link and click on "increased signal strength" in the interactive video that loads on AT&T website for the microcell, it starts to play a video that actually shows how crappy their service is, with the guy having to hang out of the window to make a call... WTF? AT&T should fire whoever makes their commercials...
Check it out: http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/why/3gmicrocell/
onicon
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
Knowing how bullying feels like when it's done to you, no matter why or what the difference is, i really appreciate them doing this.
BornAgainMac
Apr 13, 04:40 AM
Finally Grand Central has been used in a major app.
parenthesis
Oct 25, 10:27 PM
Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?
If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)
If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:45 PM
That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
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.
