THX1139
Jul 12, 03:59 AM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x. powermac's are going to be high end workstations for print, graphics, and media shops, 8x pci express won't cut it.
look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.
the upcoming powermac's will use core duo 2 and extremes. unfortunately we won't have a quad processor intel powermac just yet. but i bet the core duo 2 extreme will still show processing improvements above and beyond the quad g5 which will be good enough.
the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.
The most intelligent post on this thread. Sadly, I agree. We won't see Quad Macs until Kentsfield ships first quarter of 2007. Until then, it's going to be Duo 2 extreme and Quad G5 in the lineup.
On another note, I cracks me up whenever I read any post where people bash the Conroe. They say that having it in anything other than iMac would be disappointing. Well, all I can say is the Conroe is a wicked fast chip and for all instensive purposes, it's just as fast as Woodcrest... if not faster. The only drawback is lack of multi processor support. For that we have to wait until 2007.
Come WWDC, I hope to find out I'm wrong and Apple kicks out an affordable Quad Woodcrest machine. However, being a realist... I doubt it.
look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.
the upcoming powermac's will use core duo 2 and extremes. unfortunately we won't have a quad processor intel powermac just yet. but i bet the core duo 2 extreme will still show processing improvements above and beyond the quad g5 which will be good enough.
the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.
The most intelligent post on this thread. Sadly, I agree. We won't see Quad Macs until Kentsfield ships first quarter of 2007. Until then, it's going to be Duo 2 extreme and Quad G5 in the lineup.
On another note, I cracks me up whenever I read any post where people bash the Conroe. They say that having it in anything other than iMac would be disappointing. Well, all I can say is the Conroe is a wicked fast chip and for all instensive purposes, it's just as fast as Woodcrest... if not faster. The only drawback is lack of multi processor support. For that we have to wait until 2007.
Come WWDC, I hope to find out I'm wrong and Apple kicks out an affordable Quad Woodcrest machine. However, being a realist... I doubt it.
chabig
Sep 20, 08:00 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Pay attention. That's NOT the name. That's just what we're calling it today.
Pay attention. That's NOT the name. That's just what we're calling it today.
Cabbit
Apr 15, 12:43 PM
Just to note there is gay behaviour in the animal kingdom, my two male cats went at it in there puberty and it is well documented in other animals. It is perfectly natural and before the time of the christian gods creation gay behaviour was tolerated in Rome though lesbian behaviour was not.
And marriage is legal in many parts of Europe between same sex couples, it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
And marriage is legal in many parts of Europe between same sex couples, it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
0815
May 2, 11:10 AM
Please wake me up when there is a real thread that requires no user interaction. Even if they found a way to start the installer automatically (I at least don't allow any downloads to be opened automatically) , why would I hit continue to install once the installer pops up?
Yes, the biggest thread to security is sitting in front of the computer and if you click blindly 'continue' and 'ok' to every pop up, well, nobody can help you than anyway. I survived windows (since 3.1) without getting any virus/malware and I am confident that I will survive macOS without any (once real threads are there) ... just use common sense.
Yes, the biggest thread to security is sitting in front of the computer and if you click blindly 'continue' and 'ok' to every pop up, well, nobody can help you than anyway. I survived windows (since 3.1) without getting any virus/malware and I am confident that I will survive macOS without any (once real threads are there) ... just use common sense.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 03:35 PM
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:43 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
Rafterman
Apr 13, 07:54 AM
$199 would be OK for a high quality consumer editing package. But $299 is still a bit steep, unless you are a Pro. But if you are a Pro, you are probably turned off by some of the product's dumbing down. So I am not sure who Apple is trying to appeal to here.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 06:47 AM
I was thinking the same thing. "In my day" a hardcore gamer was someone that custom built a gaming rig consisting of no less then 2 graphics cards (add a third and get SLI + PhysX), each costing at least if not more then a single PS3, the most expensive 'extreme' cpu they could find, and a small nuclear power plant for a PSU, then boasting about their 3D Mark scores.
Rhus plants (poison ivy,
pictures of poison ivy plant.
Poison Ivy Killer
poison ivy plant images.
poison ivy plant
The rash caused by poison ivy
if a case of poison ivy
poison ivy plant.
pictures of poison ivy plant.
Toxicodendron radicans plant
Poison ivy, oak, and sumac are
RawBert
Mar 11, 10:07 AM
the tsunami videos are horrifying. :(
clebin
Apr 13, 05:03 AM
A reminder of Jobs' stunning hypocrisy from a year ago:
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Congrats on another Cocoa port, Apple.
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Congrats on another Cocoa port, Apple.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:57 AM
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
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.
Sydde
Mar 12, 01:02 PM
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time?
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
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.
Sydde
Mar 24, 07:29 PM
Don't be so disingenuous. The Catholic church has stigmatised gays relentlessly.
"Stigmatised"? Is that a best-case description of what the church has done?
"Stigmatised"? Is that a best-case description of what the church has done?
robbieduncan
Mar 13, 03:51 PM
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
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...
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
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...
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:15 PM
MrMacman:
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Mord
Jul 12, 05:57 PM
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.
go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.
do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.
we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"
anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.
each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.
go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.
do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.
we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"
anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:44 PM
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
mkaake
Mar 18, 09:59 AM
holy crap.
that's no good. no good at all.
i'm wondering how long before apple finds a way to shut this down - both with legal action, and changing the way that their servers serve up the files...
that's no good. no good at all.
i'm wondering how long before apple finds a way to shut this down - both with legal action, and changing the way that their servers serve up the files...
cr2sh
Oct 7, 12:16 PM
I thought we decided to ignore everything that barefeats has to say? They are not a reputable source at all, their tests are flawed and they have little metadata at all.... why even bother?
darktiger
Apr 15, 09:33 AM
I am mostly a windows user (have been since 1986), but I did buy me a 2011 macbook pro two days to edit videos. So this thread has been helpful. Thanks everyone.
nsjoker
Sep 20, 03:45 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
