WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:15 AM
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:29 PM
Bah humans in general are eejits.
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 01:59 PM
Perfectly fine using the new designs that run safer and can even recycle their own waste. I would not have dismissed the entire car industry just because the early models lacked safety features and had high fatality and breakdown rates. It's early days still for the nuclear power industry. We do need to work on uranium mining and milling practices, however.
slu
Oct 7, 04:06 PM
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
SuperCachetes
Mar 13, 11:36 AM
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented.
Good post.
To be fair, though, sometimes Americans give themselves a good shat as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
Good post.
To be fair, though, sometimes Americans give themselves a good shat as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:03 PM
Just curious what NFC does in any Android device currently?
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:30 AM
I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
ddtlm
Oct 13, 06:30 PM
javajedi:
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
writingdevil
Apr 13, 05:23 AM
many of these are from non full time editors if you read posts over time..and if you follow the site, the usual suspects pick up on part of somebody else's post, try to put a twist on it, and post it without having real understanding of the heart of the topic. we started on avid in first project in film school through four years of filmmaking, then onto feature jobs, and this system rocks. murch, coen bros, coppola, lots of features using fcp and endorse it totally. people in my pops generation started on other systems and somewhere along the way, jus got tired of learning new tech, although they're still damn good editors.
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:16 AM
the word day is used over 2000 times in the old testament, and you want to change the meaning of only six of them? Especially since the creation passages define the light as "day" and the darkness as "night", day is clearly defined as 24hrs
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to God. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to God. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
MacsAttack
Sep 29, 05:15 AM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 18, 06:04 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works), that's right...
Jason Beck
May 3, 06:35 PM
Someone link us some malware and viruses for OSX so we can have a looksie.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 12:43 PM
I am religious, however, I have to say there is some sort of motivation inside me to stick to my religion. I can't put my finger on what it is exactly, but there's something there. I'm always looking forward to something for some reason.
Satoneko
Mar 13, 11:46 PM
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.
I hope you are aware that Bikini Atol is exactly where Godzilla was born.
I hope you are aware that Bikini Atol is exactly where Godzilla was born.
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:53 AM
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 04:53 PM
The U.S. is proving to be the worst thing to happen to Mother Earth since the inception of time.
...until the next global power comes along.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
Modern lightbulbs and computers don't use much energy, my laptop and a single energy efficient light bulb probably use less energy than just a incandescent light bulb from 20 years ago.
Indeed. You can power several compact fluorescent lights and a smaller laptop using the same amount of electricity as one 40 or 60 watt bulb. But 20 years ago we didn't all have laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices - or as many people using them.
...until the next global power comes along.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
Modern lightbulbs and computers don't use much energy, my laptop and a single energy efficient light bulb probably use less energy than just a incandescent light bulb from 20 years ago.
Indeed. You can power several compact fluorescent lights and a smaller laptop using the same amount of electricity as one 40 or 60 watt bulb. But 20 years ago we didn't all have laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices - or as many people using them.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:51 PM
HDMI has nothing to do with the down res of an image. The Image Constraint Token dictates whether HD will be transmitted over analog channels like component. The ICT has not been implemented by any studio and they have stated it is not likely to be in the near future.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
That is exactly what I said, except in plain English.
To repeat: HDMI maintains image resolution and allows the receiving device (monitor with HD Compliancy) to adjust if needed. It also maintains encryption for DRM -- I said exactly what you said.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
That is exactly what I said, except in plain English.
To repeat: HDMI maintains image resolution and allows the receiving device (monitor with HD Compliancy) to adjust if needed. It also maintains encryption for DRM -- I said exactly what you said.
Mord
Jul 12, 10:08 AM
I'm still wondering why not both - Xeon Woody in pairs for the top of the line Quad and Conroe in the mid and low Core 2 Duo models. I can't see Apple spending all that extra money to support two cores from one Woody when it will cost them a lot less to use Conroe and a Conroe motherboard for the same two core performance. Can you?
I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
rstansby
Mar 18, 05:01 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by benixau
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
Does this thing have an Ethernet port, and it apparently does. I'd rather not rely on wireless. Right now I have a VGA cable from my iMac to my TV, so I'd gain something by replacing it with a simple CAT5.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
robotfist
Apr 12, 10:24 PM
I was following the tweets, the live blogs, and a few crappy cell phone streams during this release.
Until Apple puts up their official site, it's too early to tell if the new FCP is a game changer.
Based on the description, it sounds amazing.
Based on the terrible pictures, it looks questionable.
I always go into new software releases with an open mind. I'm hoping the new FCP is as amazing as it sounds.
Whatever it is, $299 is pretty fantastic.
Until Apple puts up their official site, it's too early to tell if the new FCP is a game changer.
Based on the description, it sounds amazing.
Based on the terrible pictures, it looks questionable.
I always go into new software releases with an open mind. I'm hoping the new FCP is as amazing as it sounds.
Whatever it is, $299 is pretty fantastic.