Apple OC
Mar 15, 12:09 AM
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
very informative link ... this is likely another 3 Mile situation and will get under control. The expanded evacuation seems to be added precaution and not an indication of Radiation sweeping the area.
I feel for the people that have been displaced and wish them well
very informative link ... this is likely another 3 Mile situation and will get under control. The expanded evacuation seems to be added precaution and not an indication of Radiation sweeping the area.
I feel for the people that have been displaced and wish them well
Michaelgtrusa
May 2, 10:07 AM
Be careful.
greenstork
Sep 20, 05:53 PM
its more than just Airport Express for Video, its a TV tunes via the internet and the home network.
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
takao
Mar 13, 06:47 AM
It won't be an issue. Please refer to my previous post in this thread.
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
obviously it won't be a disaster on the scale of chernobyl but it is already high up on the scale of disasters (6 reactors without cooling, 2 core meltdowns), it's pretty much confirmed that nuclear material has been spilled even if it was just hydrogen blowing up the external construction
it shouldn't be forgotten IMHO that a lot of radition will be spilled in the clean up progress (not only radiation: boric acid is actually quite toxic)
as a consequence the german government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
edit: according to some reports the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
edit: don't forget that reducing the heat of a molten core might take quite some time so i wouldn't call the danger off as well: even when being cooled it still might have just enough remaining heat to melt through the bottom of the pressure chamber. i suspect we will know more in 24 hours
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
obviously it won't be a disaster on the scale of chernobyl but it is already high up on the scale of disasters (6 reactors without cooling, 2 core meltdowns), it's pretty much confirmed that nuclear material has been spilled even if it was just hydrogen blowing up the external construction
it shouldn't be forgotten IMHO that a lot of radition will be spilled in the clean up progress (not only radiation: boric acid is actually quite toxic)
as a consequence the german government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
edit: according to some reports the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
edit: don't forget that reducing the heat of a molten core might take quite some time so i wouldn't call the danger off as well: even when being cooled it still might have just enough remaining heat to melt through the bottom of the pressure chamber. i suspect we will know more in 24 hours
Multimedia
Sep 26, 11:38 AM
I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily. Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea. -mark
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
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.
Demoman
Jul 12, 09:27 PM
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
Does not sound like you have been anywhere. Whether the entire line of PM's need to be SMP is a question for someone close to the sales data. I find your assuming everyone want to use a computer like you very arrogant and simple-minded. Why are you even on this website? If you hold Apple in such distain, why not go find a place where you can bond with other folk who have only achieved the same level of computer knowledge and manners as you.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
Does not sound like you have been anywhere. Whether the entire line of PM's need to be SMP is a question for someone close to the sales data. I find your assuming everyone want to use a computer like you very arrogant and simple-minded. Why are you even on this website? If you hold Apple in such distain, why not go find a place where you can bond with other folk who have only achieved the same level of computer knowledge and manners as you.
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:22 AM
I find it such a shame about the the low standards we as Americans have for our mobile providers. I see many people with the satisfaction of AT&T around the country, that they have no connection problems. Here is the problem. We are so accustomed to saying that signal strength is the be all and end all. The next question should be network speed. Case in point, I have family in Ottawa in Canada. He did a speedtest, during a weekday, and was getting 5.8 - 6.0 Mbps download speeds on Rogers and Fido networks. What do I get in NYC the fastest? On a good day 2.0 Mbps. The same morning he sent me his results from Ottawa I did a test and received 54 kbps. That's right...dial up speed. The fact is that we do not demand fast speeds as they have have in other places throughout the world, Europe, many parts of Asia and, yes, Canada. There is a reason for this: no competition. I can speak of Canada because of family there: there are multiple carriers there that will support the frequency the iPhone is on. Here, it is only AT&T. Many report using iPhone on T-Mobile with an unlocked phone, but, as I understand it, you can only used Edge on T-Mobile because of the different frequency. In other words, only 2G speeds.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
gjkiii
May 9, 11:32 PM
Hopefully someone at ATT will read these posts! In the same boat, last 3-4 weeks been getting worse in R.I.
It won't matter. I am a firm believer than unless you have pressure from a competitor you can take your time fixing your problems. And until the iphone ends up on another carrier I can't see AT&T making improvements for Iphone users a priority. Despite what steve says I believe that the AT&T networks would be better if the iphone was on multiple carriers. It may have been a good decision for steve financially to make it exclusive but its not a good decision by steve for the iphone users.
It won't matter. I am a firm believer than unless you have pressure from a competitor you can take your time fixing your problems. And until the iphone ends up on another carrier I can't see AT&T making improvements for Iphone users a priority. Despite what steve says I believe that the AT&T networks would be better if the iphone was on multiple carriers. It may have been a good decision for steve financially to make it exclusive but its not a good decision by steve for the iphone users.
mscriv
Apr 6, 02:20 PM
All you have to do is press CMD+~ it's right above the tab key. I figured it out the other day. CMD+TAB to switch b/w apps, CMD+~ to switch b/w windows.
Thanks for that one. Been using a Mac for 6 years and never found it. Saves a lot of F3 and click action :).
I find no need for this shortcut as setting Expose's all windows feature to a mouse button seems to be the easiest and quickest way to shift between open windows. Have you tried that?
Thanks for that one. Been using a Mac for 6 years and never found it. Saves a lot of F3 and click action :).
I find no need for this shortcut as setting Expose's all windows feature to a mouse button seems to be the easiest and quickest way to shift between open windows. Have you tried that?
Mademan12321
May 8, 10:53 AM
I've had AT&T/Cingular since 2002/3. I've barely ever had an issue. When I did, it was one month where they did seem to run ******. Then that went away and I've not had an issue again *shrug* (Ok, once at a county fair where probably all the people conglamerated together in an area that usually isn't that populous probably overloaded the towers there. Actually, it turned out it was my iphone had crashed and needed to restart which has happened to me occasionally). I've used my phone in Washington, Georgia, Connecticut, Long Island, and New Jersey.
The only carrier I avoid like the plague is Sprint. And to be fair, maybe they've improved by now (to have still survived I would think so). And it wasn't dropped calls. It was so reliabley bad connection calls I could never understand anyone calling on Sprint. And everyone I knew with Sprint had the same complaints.
MY parents had Sprint and I finally asked them to call me on their landline cause I never could understand the call (and htis was the time Sprint was advertising that you would misunderstand people on other networks. My experience their parody of other networks fit them to a T).
My only thing with Verizon (once again they may have changed by now) is they were significantly more expensive than Cingular or T-Mobile (and Cingular had better coverage than T-Mobile which is why I went with them). Like by 20 dollars a month when I was shopping for plans (this was just regular voice plans). I've been happy enough with Cingular I've never really felt the need to change *shrug*. I probably would not have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (cause I was just browsing phones AT&T had). And now I love the iphone so much AT&T would have to suddenly get really bad or another carrier would have to get really good (or a really enticing phone) to make me want to leave.
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service. I would never in this lifetime go back to Sprint after the harsh treatment of me and my connection problems. They made it seem it wasn't there fault they had crap service here.
The only place in Texas I couldn't get strong coverage is going towards Oklahoma in the boonies. Other than that it's been great when I travel to places like Las Vegas, Louisiana, Florida, and Atlanta. I have never had to dispute my bill or complain about excessive dropped calls.
The only carrier I avoid like the plague is Sprint. And to be fair, maybe they've improved by now (to have still survived I would think so). And it wasn't dropped calls. It was so reliabley bad connection calls I could never understand anyone calling on Sprint. And everyone I knew with Sprint had the same complaints.
MY parents had Sprint and I finally asked them to call me on their landline cause I never could understand the call (and htis was the time Sprint was advertising that you would misunderstand people on other networks. My experience their parody of other networks fit them to a T).
My only thing with Verizon (once again they may have changed by now) is they were significantly more expensive than Cingular or T-Mobile (and Cingular had better coverage than T-Mobile which is why I went with them). Like by 20 dollars a month when I was shopping for plans (this was just regular voice plans). I've been happy enough with Cingular I've never really felt the need to change *shrug*. I probably would not have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (cause I was just browsing phones AT&T had). And now I love the iphone so much AT&T would have to suddenly get really bad or another carrier would have to get really good (or a really enticing phone) to make me want to leave.
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service. I would never in this lifetime go back to Sprint after the harsh treatment of me and my connection problems. They made it seem it wasn't there fault they had crap service here.
The only place in Texas I couldn't get strong coverage is going towards Oklahoma in the boonies. Other than that it's been great when I travel to places like Las Vegas, Louisiana, Florida, and Atlanta. I have never had to dispute my bill or complain about excessive dropped calls.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:23 AM
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Blue Velvet
Mar 12, 03:46 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
Chucho
May 17, 12:41 AM
I was having ~50% calls dropped with my iPhone. Bought a Nexus One, popped in the AT&T sim card from the iPhone and it has worked flawlessly.
armille1
Apr 20, 07:34 PM
So when does the second gen LTE chip come out?
stcanard
Mar 18, 08:41 PM
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
EricNau
Sep 21, 05:00 PM
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
No. :(
-Clive
No. :(
Photics
Apr 9, 10:26 AM
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
munkery
May 2, 04:32 PM
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
All successful malware includes privilege escalation via exploitation. This does not. That is why malware never has become successful in OS X and is becoming less successful in Windows. The big issue with Windows in the past was the default account in Windows XP (admin) runs with elevated privileges by default so privilege escalation was not required for system level access.
All successful malware includes privilege escalation via exploitation. This does not. That is why malware never has become successful in OS X and is becoming less successful in Windows. The big issue with Windows in the past was the default account in Windows XP (admin) runs with elevated privileges by default so privilege escalation was not required for system level access.
AlphaDogg
Apr 5, 06:26 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
Taz Mangus
Apr 21, 03:05 PM
Look Android lovers... this is an Apple site. You don't need to call us "Fanboys" in a condescending way here. We are here because we love our Macs, iOS devices or we develop for them and like to keep up on the news. Yes... many here are "fanboys".
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
Wow! One of the best posts I have read in a long while. Quite refreshing and truthful. Thanks. :D
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
Wow! One of the best posts I have read in a long while. Quite refreshing and truthful. Thanks. :D
javajedi
Oct 9, 08:03 PM
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
Andronicus
Apr 28, 12:57 PM
It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what people are buying. Many are buying iPads for browsing/facebook/farmville instead of another HP or Dell laptop.
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
Well it doesn't matter what you think either then! :p
And that's a stupid argument, I'm pretty sure 99% of people on this forum understood what I meant when I said, a computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable. :rolleyes:
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
Well it doesn't matter what you think either then! :p
And that's a stupid argument, I'm pretty sure 99% of people on this forum understood what I meant when I said, a computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable. :rolleyes:
archipellago
May 2, 05:02 PM
My head hurts� everyone needs a time out! Go to your corners! :p
sorry, I'm done here now.
sorry, I'm done here now.
