shawnce
Jul 12, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.
go go Mr. Stereotype
go go Mr. Stereotype
Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 07:33 AM
Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:35 AM
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:37 PM
They should have just called this iMovie pro, because that's what it is. So, Apple Color is left to die the death of Shake, huh? Wow, crazy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
Mord
Jul 12, 06:42 AM
my scanner came with photoshop 5.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:58 PM
that's prolly why sj goes ballistic when any reporter mentions anything to that effect...it may be true or ...maybe... apple and steve jobs may be with motorola 100% percent and hate the "ibm talk" because of how it undermines the high end computing relationship they have now
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
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.
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:00 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Electro Funk
Sep 20, 07:26 PM
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
i am glad there is not a dvd player included... now if it was bluray or HD DVD (even an upconverting player that scaled to 720p or 1080I) that would be a whole nother story... but, if it was just your run of the mill 480p dvd then i dont want to pay extra for it... i already have 3 dvd players and a samsung upconverting dvd player...
i am glad there is not a dvd player included... now if it was bluray or HD DVD (even an upconverting player that scaled to 720p or 1080I) that would be a whole nother story... but, if it was just your run of the mill 480p dvd then i dont want to pay extra for it... i already have 3 dvd players and a samsung upconverting dvd player...
Multimedia
Nov 3, 03:28 AM
Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
Backtothemac
Oct 10, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by benixau
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
There someone in this thread actually gets it. Sure the PC may be faster, SO FRIGGIN WHAT! I will never go back to a PC, and do not know a single Mac user that really would. Sure we bitch and moan, but the fact is that we know that we are on a much better platform!
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
There someone in this thread actually gets it. Sure the PC may be faster, SO FRIGGIN WHAT! I will never go back to a PC, and do not know a single Mac user that really would. Sure we bitch and moan, but the fact is that we know that we are on a much better platform!
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
ChazUK
Feb 24, 12:07 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)
The droid Phones are great but the one problem that remains with them that makes the iPhone so much better are the Apps I have not seen one app on the droid market place that says wow that looks great, granted the market place is new but still even the iPhone had better working/Looking apps in its first release than the android.
By "looks great" I take it you are referring to games?
wiz khalifa wallpaper for
wiz khalifa 480x319 Black
Wiz Khalifa Wallpaper
Wiz Khalifa - Rolling Papers
Computer Desktop Wallpapers
5:Desktop Wallpaper
The droid Phones are great but the one problem that remains with them that makes the iPhone so much better are the Apps I have not seen one app on the droid market place that says wow that looks great, granted the market place is new but still even the iPhone had better working/Looking apps in its first release than the android.
By "looks great" I take it you are referring to games?
awmazz
Mar 14, 12:07 AM
I sure as hell would not want wind turbines on the roof of houses. The noise from them would drive me insane.
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
pink-pony115
Aug 30, 01:01 AM
ooooooooooh no is the world coming to a end?
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
r.j.s
May 2, 11:39 AM
It pops up when I open Steam. "Steam would now like to auto-update itself, enter your password". Same for all my "auto-updating" apps that are installed system wide.
This conditions the user as much.
Fair enough. IMO, users understand that they are updating an app at that time, but I can see your point.
Though looking for information on this MacDefender, I'm genuinely curious how the installer "pop-ups". I haven't found anything interesting. Since Archive utility doesn't honor absolute paths in a Zip, how does the little bugger get launched ?
Maybe the use of a different archive utility, e.g. The Unarchiver, is to blame for this?
This conditions the user as much.
Fair enough. IMO, users understand that they are updating an app at that time, but I can see your point.
Though looking for information on this MacDefender, I'm genuinely curious how the installer "pop-ups". I haven't found anything interesting. Since Archive utility doesn't honor absolute paths in a Zip, how does the little bugger get launched ?
Maybe the use of a different archive utility, e.g. The Unarchiver, is to blame for this?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 07:11 PM
Including a completely identifiable chief god and pantheon shared with other local polytheistic religions. The only difference was that in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the polytheism was suppressed and the chief god reigned unchallenged.
Maybe not in those exact words, butandcome pretty damned close.
The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical. They're not a commandment or an exhortation to continue doing those things. Sharia law hasn't been developed using those verses.
No, Jesus Christ's law takes over all laws from the old testament, and anyway those verses you quoted aren't laws, they're just saying what happened, they're not prescriptions of how to act or behave. The Qur'an is prescriptive.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
so you admit that freedom of conscience is prohibited in Islam and that people who leave their Islamic religion should be sentenced to death? Or are you saying blasphemers should be punished?
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
Maybe not in those exact words, butandcome pretty damned close.
The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical. They're not a commandment or an exhortation to continue doing those things. Sharia law hasn't been developed using those verses.
No, Jesus Christ's law takes over all laws from the old testament, and anyway those verses you quoted aren't laws, they're just saying what happened, they're not prescriptions of how to act or behave. The Qur'an is prescriptive.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
so you admit that freedom of conscience is prohibited in Islam and that people who leave their Islamic religion should be sentenced to death? Or are you saying blasphemers should be punished?
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
bryanc
Aug 29, 01:55 PM
...
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
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.
But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.
Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.
Cheers
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
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.
But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.
Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.
Cheers
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 09:30 PM
This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?
The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:
Is this really true?
The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:
Is this really true?
D4F
Apr 28, 09:06 AM
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
Apple OC
Apr 23, 02:23 AM
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
Elfear
Oct 31, 11:00 PM
Sorry for the noob question, but does anyone know how well Maya 7 will scale with 8 cores? My buddy is debating whether to buy a single Kentsfield or step up to dual Clovertons. He has a freelance business in which he uses Maya 7 quite a bit. Thanks.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 11:04 AM
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support.
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
