firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
CQd44
May 2, 09:16 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
tigress666
May 6, 10:19 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.
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.
Lennholm
May 2, 10:30 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:25 PM
Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
And if the sea water doesn't reach the bottom of the reactor vessel, well, gravity will cause the bottom to drop out, IF there is sufficient heat to melt the stainless steel.
And if the sea water doesn't reach the bottom of the reactor vessel, well, gravity will cause the bottom to drop out, IF there is sufficient heat to melt the stainless steel.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 08:50 PM
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.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
Drewnrupe
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
Please excuse me if I am missing something totally obvious here as I am a relatively new convert to Apple.
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
Wwe+sin+cara+wiki
Wwe+sin+cara+wiki
Former WCW and WWE wrestler
WWE Divas in Vegas
We mean no disrespect to The
WWE Raw on Monday night.
Home gt; John Cena, WWE Pictures
and the LJN line of WWF
The Truth About Fat British
WWE Grappler Gene Snitsky
En Aniversario #39;90 Carlos Colón y TNT se enfrentaron por el campeonato Universal, la lucha llegó al tiempo limite de una hora sin que hubiera un ganador.
Gabriel GR
Feb 11, 09:10 PM
Honestly. The only things I want from an internet empowered phone is to work well with my email (gmail) and calendar.
So far my blackberry serves me alright. But it sucks in everything else.
So far my blackberry serves me alright. But it sucks in everything else.
michaellinehan
Oct 7, 02:40 PM
"it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market"
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
skunk
Apr 24, 11:04 AM
Do you think they make him change in the closet? :)I shouldn't think Lee remembers what a closet is, it's been so long since he was in one.
puma1552
Mar 12, 05:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
levitynyc
Apr 9, 05:00 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers. That's fine. As long as Apple does not come in to the gaming market and starts trying to strong arm third party big names all is good.
I would consider myself a hardcore gamer and I'm not ashamed of it. I went to PAX East the last 2 years and own all 3 home consoles plus a PSP, 3DS, DSi, iPhone and iPad. Gaming kept me away from all the drugs and alcohol that my friends were doing in high school. I'm almost 30 now and I'm married, have a good job, have a beautiful home and a beautiful wife, so lets not get stereotyped.
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
The gaming industry is upset with Apple because Apple is finally giving customers the option to pay what customers think a game is worth, not what a console manufacturer thinks a game is worth. If Pilot Wings 3DS was an App store game, it'd be AT MOST 10 dollars. I bought it, I enjoy it, but I feel ripped off by the price.
This scares the hell out of Nintendo as their mandatory priced 40 dollar games are being compared not only in quality, but in PRICE to iOS games.
Tiger Woods golf is another great game on the consoles, but that game is 60 dollars. The iPad version is very very similar (doesn't have Augusta and online modes and a few other small things) but its only 10 bucks on the iPad and I'm sure it'll be on sale shortly.
Last year I picked up the iPhone version for 99 cents. I had more fun with that than the 60 dollar console version because at any time I could play a hole or 2 when I had a few minutes of down time at work.
I would consider myself a hardcore gamer and I'm not ashamed of it. I went to PAX East the last 2 years and own all 3 home consoles plus a PSP, 3DS, DSi, iPhone and iPad. Gaming kept me away from all the drugs and alcohol that my friends were doing in high school. I'm almost 30 now and I'm married, have a good job, have a beautiful home and a beautiful wife, so lets not get stereotyped.
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
The gaming industry is upset with Apple because Apple is finally giving customers the option to pay what customers think a game is worth, not what a console manufacturer thinks a game is worth. If Pilot Wings 3DS was an App store game, it'd be AT MOST 10 dollars. I bought it, I enjoy it, but I feel ripped off by the price.
This scares the hell out of Nintendo as their mandatory priced 40 dollar games are being compared not only in quality, but in PRICE to iOS games.
Tiger Woods golf is another great game on the consoles, but that game is 60 dollars. The iPad version is very very similar (doesn't have Augusta and online modes and a few other small things) but its only 10 bucks on the iPad and I'm sure it'll be on sale shortly.
Last year I picked up the iPhone version for 99 cents. I had more fun with that than the 60 dollar console version because at any time I could play a hole or 2 when I had a few minutes of down time at work.
rxse7en
Oct 13, 06:55 PM
Thank you very much for that tip and link. You saved me all but $11 in sales tax. So it was like getting the $1444 deal without tax. $1349 plus tax. I pulled the trigger this morning and hope to receive it next week.Looking forward to maximum desktop in one screen. Long story is I ordered the 24" about 6 weeks ago then realized I wanted the 30" when it went on sale for like $1600 + tax so canceled the next day. But Dell screwed up my credit for 6 weeks so I couldn't even order the 30 until today and you came up with the coupon just in the nick of time to save me even more than I expected to save - like another $250. Total bill came to only $1468.32. Amazing luck for me.
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
emotion
Sep 20, 08:36 AM
It looks like a Mini and and i can do exactly the same with the current Mini. Hook up a Mini to a TV and add it to a home network, let it be cabled or wireless. With the frontrow software you can now listen and watch all the content from the other computers in the network with iTunes streaming.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
I can do what an iPod does with my Powerbook too. Doesn't mean I want to use that to play music when I'm walking around.
Likewise, I want a computer at close distance hooked up to a computer monitor, it's less than ideal sat under my TV displaying on a relatively low res screen with a keyboard and mouse teetering on my lap. I know Apple think this too.
With the iTV as I see it you get to have that Mini being a real computer somewhere else in your house.
That said, I could be wrong and it could be a really cut down Mac Mini. I guess we'll see.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
I can do what an iPod does with my Powerbook too. Doesn't mean I want to use that to play music when I'm walking around.
Likewise, I want a computer at close distance hooked up to a computer monitor, it's less than ideal sat under my TV displaying on a relatively low res screen with a keyboard and mouse teetering on my lap. I know Apple think this too.
With the iTV as I see it you get to have that Mini being a real computer somewhere else in your house.
That said, I could be wrong and it could be a really cut down Mac Mini. I guess we'll see.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:59 AM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
dgree03
Apr 28, 01:42 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 11:25 AM
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
Piggie
Apr 28, 09:44 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 09:00 AM
I think AppleInsider is slightly wrong on this.
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
BigDukeSix
Apr 24, 06:21 PM
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
miloblithe
Aug 29, 10:56 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Corporate Social Responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
