alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.
skunk
Apr 27, 04:39 PM
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
Thunderhawks
Apr 13, 07:13 AM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
Bet you that guy doesn't even know what he is talking about.
He just likes to rattle the (APPLE) cage:-)
He is addicted to MR and Apple and has a hard time to approve of anything Apple does.
Funny though he uses their products!
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
Bet you that guy doesn't even know what he is talking about.
He just likes to rattle the (APPLE) cage:-)
He is addicted to MR and Apple and has a hard time to approve of anything Apple does.
Funny though he uses their products!
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
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.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
larrybeo
Mar 18, 09:43 AM
People who complain that your service provider is going to make you follow the ru:eek:les unnerve me with their uncanny ability to disregard all that stands to reason with the sustainability of your "toys." They are like little sissies on the playground crying after a Barbie Doll has been taken from them. Those people should man up and start paying for the footprint they leave on the network.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:27 AM
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
blue22
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
Steve Jobs said the new version would be "awesome," well I disagree. He was completely wrong... IT IS FREAKIN' ASTOUNDING! Bravo Apple!
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
yoak
Apr 13, 07:59 AM
It looks promising in my book, but I�m a DP/cameraman that sometime edits (for broadcast), not a "proper" editor.
I have used FCS enough to know of many of it�s short comings though.
For anyone interested have a look at what Larry Jordan says in his blog from after the event. It�s a very interesting read from someone I know it�s a pro at least.
Leathal has good points (as always) though, but I don�t think they bothered with all the "trivia".
For one, I would almost bet my life that you can still do multiclip editing
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/
I have used FCS enough to know of many of it�s short comings though.
For anyone interested have a look at what Larry Jordan says in his blog from after the event. It�s a very interesting read from someone I know it�s a pro at least.
Leathal has good points (as always) though, but I don�t think they bothered with all the "trivia".
For one, I would almost bet my life that you can still do multiclip editing
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 08:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I don't want to claim this or that about myself nor do I want to say that I know this person in LA or whatever.
I get a paycheck for what I do and I love my job.
Now, personally, I am excited about the update, but very concerned about the apps shortcuts and the minor details that makes an NLE a professional level app.
We can calm down about the whiners/drama-queens, and we can calm down about the consumers flaming the pros.
The PROS are concerned not because of anything other than their bread and butter app heading in a direction no one may have asked for. Many of us get paid to get a job done in X amount of time. To save time we remap keys, use shortcuts and 3rd party surfaces and other hardware to speed the edit.
We like change but we like change to be in-tune with what an app needed to give us the competitive edge. We aren't worried about young folks talking a good game but not knowing the difference between CTRL-V and CTRL-M in FCP.
I will save my major comments until I see the shortcut layout, the amount of customization, and hear from the working industry . . . you know the ones too busy getting it done to attend the event. Not the ones that got paid go.
With that said, the CONSUMERS are happy I see because they literally do see this update as candy. Another app they can buy to cut their home movies. The college students see an app they can afford (even though FCE was perfect).
Can we turn off the water works and whiny pro/consumer bashing and get back on topic?
You're 100% correct.
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
I don't want to claim this or that about myself nor do I want to say that I know this person in LA or whatever.
I get a paycheck for what I do and I love my job.
Now, personally, I am excited about the update, but very concerned about the apps shortcuts and the minor details that makes an NLE a professional level app.
We can calm down about the whiners/drama-queens, and we can calm down about the consumers flaming the pros.
The PROS are concerned not because of anything other than their bread and butter app heading in a direction no one may have asked for. Many of us get paid to get a job done in X amount of time. To save time we remap keys, use shortcuts and 3rd party surfaces and other hardware to speed the edit.
We like change but we like change to be in-tune with what an app needed to give us the competitive edge. We aren't worried about young folks talking a good game but not knowing the difference between CTRL-V and CTRL-M in FCP.
I will save my major comments until I see the shortcut layout, the amount of customization, and hear from the working industry . . . you know the ones too busy getting it done to attend the event. Not the ones that got paid go.
With that said, the CONSUMERS are happy I see because they literally do see this update as candy. Another app they can buy to cut their home movies. The college students see an app they can afford (even though FCE was perfect).
Can we turn off the water works and whiny pro/consumer bashing and get back on topic?
You're 100% correct.
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:42 AM
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
dextertangocci
Aug 29, 10:56 AM
How can Apple be 4th lowest:eek:
At least their products are good quality, unlike Dell's crappy computers.
BTW, Apple was 4th lowest out of how many?
At least their products are good quality, unlike Dell's crappy computers.
BTW, Apple was 4th lowest out of how many?
Kebabselector
Mar 18, 08:02 AM
I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices,
True, but once you move away from a major city 3's network is rather crap.
To be fair it's a good deal, but good luck leaving 3 when you decide to move on. Their call centres are awful to deal with.
True, but once you move away from a major city 3's network is rather crap.
To be fair it's a good deal, but good luck leaving 3 when you decide to move on. Their call centres are awful to deal with.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
Groovey
Aug 30, 11:32 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Northgrove
Apr 13, 03:21 AM
Wow, from the live coverage this sounds great!
I would never have imagined a price cut like that, with all these new features!
I have absolutely no idea what people complaining here about it going non-pro is talking about.
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
I would never have imagined a price cut like that, with all these new features!
I have absolutely no idea what people complaining here about it going non-pro is talking about.
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 12:59 AM
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture.
From what I've read tonight was just for FCP X and info on the other apps will be released down the road. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that people who use Color on a daily basis won't miss it when no one has actually used FCP X yet? Maybe it will, maybe it won't be can we at least let the app get out the door before we put a crown on it's head?
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
Are you really suggesting that a dSLR and a product that we've only seen a brief preview of can replace everything else out there?
Lethal
From what I've read tonight was just for FCP X and info on the other apps will be released down the road. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that people who use Color on a daily basis won't miss it when no one has actually used FCP X yet? Maybe it will, maybe it won't be can we at least let the app get out the door before we put a crown on it's head?
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
Are you really suggesting that a dSLR and a product that we've only seen a brief preview of can replace everything else out there?
Lethal
Trishul
Oct 27, 03:56 AM
ah i'm so glad i check this website, sold my Quad G5 day before yesterday, and put in an order for a Mac Pro, that would have arrived Tuesday, fortunately (at least i hope it turns out that way) i saw this news last night, being unable to cancel online, i had to call and have just now cancelled the order. Don't know how to read into this, and i doubt customer services are in possession of such information but when the lady asked me why i was cancelling i mentioned hearing about new version coming out, it was news to her she thought i was making it up, so she put me on hold, and came back after a minute or two, i was worried she was coming back with news saying i couldn't cancel my order or something, but she had a different tone as if someone told her the news was true and she was happy to cancel.
But seriously i wish there was some more concrete news of the Octo core, i'm going to have to finish off a lot of work this weekend before i ship my G5 on Monday, as i'm going to be without a Mac for at least 2-3 weeks, and even if the new Revision comes out as planned lord knows what the waiting time will be, what if they have option of x1950 or something and we are looking at the delays like before?
Looks like i have an excuse to get one of those new fangled MB Pros. no Mac for a month, can not imagine it. :(
But seriously i wish there was some more concrete news of the Octo core, i'm going to have to finish off a lot of work this weekend before i ship my G5 on Monday, as i'm going to be without a Mac for at least 2-3 weeks, and even if the new Revision comes out as planned lord knows what the waiting time will be, what if they have option of x1950 or something and we are looking at the delays like before?
Looks like i have an excuse to get one of those new fangled MB Pros. no Mac for a month, can not imagine it. :(
iliketyla
Apr 21, 07:15 PM
Unfortunately we have a whole heap of 'computer experts' on this forum who attach 'virus' onto anything they want whilst ignoring there is a huge difference between a malware and a virus.
I know I'm going to get flamed, but in the 7 or 8 years before I was bought a Macintosh computer, I never once encountered a virus while using Windows machines. Malware, yes. But ever since I gained even the most basic knowledge of how to use a computer competently, I have zero problems anymore.
I can seamlessly go from Windows to Macintosh with no problems.
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
I know I'm going to get flamed, but in the 7 or 8 years before I was bought a Macintosh computer, I never once encountered a virus while using Windows machines. Malware, yes. But ever since I gained even the most basic knowledge of how to use a computer competently, I have zero problems anymore.
I can seamlessly go from Windows to Macintosh with no problems.
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:39 PM
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ...
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:39 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
firewood
Apr 28, 06:20 PM
I want it to be like a PC, a Mac or a Laptop.
Why should Apple care what you want it to be like when they know what more people actually buy? More people purchased iPads last quarter than MacBooks or iMacs. And reports are the most of those iPad were used for exactly the same kinds of things that most PCs are actually used for.
Ya know, mainframe and minicomputer companies used to call personal computers toys, not real computers. How can it be a real computer without a punched card reader and a line printer?
The vast majority of those mainframe and minicomputer companies no longer exist.
Why should Apple care what you want it to be like when they know what more people actually buy? More people purchased iPads last quarter than MacBooks or iMacs. And reports are the most of those iPad were used for exactly the same kinds of things that most PCs are actually used for.
Ya know, mainframe and minicomputer companies used to call personal computers toys, not real computers. How can it be a real computer without a punched card reader and a line printer?
The vast majority of those mainframe and minicomputer companies no longer exist.
Ugg
Mar 14, 12:18 AM
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
California is making great strides in this area. Through creative financing, tax breaks, and fairly high electric rates, quite a few people have solar. It's especially important here in the summer when electricity use is at its greatest.
However, the one thing that nobody has brought up is that evil word..... CONSERVATION
Not using electricity is a lot cheaper all around than building a new power plant, no matter the fuel source.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
California is making great strides in this area. Through creative financing, tax breaks, and fairly high electric rates, quite a few people have solar. It's especially important here in the summer when electricity use is at its greatest.
However, the one thing that nobody has brought up is that evil word..... CONSERVATION
Not using electricity is a lot cheaper all around than building a new power plant, no matter the fuel source.