Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:41 PM
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
Eraserhead
Mar 28, 02:11 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
ffakr
Oct 6, 12:00 AM
I must love punishment because I scanned this whole tread. We need some sort system to gather the correct info into one location. :-)
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:55 AM
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
You do realize that we live in a capitalist culture right, one of the greatest consumerist cultures to have ever existed on this planet. Do you honestly believe that purchased content, free of commercials, is going to work? It was all fine and dandy when it was Apple stopping file sharing but when it's Apple honing in on the terrain of a multi-billion dollar advertising system, they're going to face significantly more resistance. And that's why cable and satellite television aren't going away anytime soon. Either that, or you can expect to see commerials coming to your iTunes downloads in the future.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
I guess I could see this supplementing my DVR. My Mac can actually already stream video to my TV wirelessly using my DVR, but the video must be in an MPEG2 format, I believe, which makes the feature fairly limiting.... So I could see it.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:16 PM
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
It's not. You don't defend against viruses the way you do against worms the way you do against trojans. The distinction is important as the infection vectors differs and the defense mechanism also differ.
To lump all malware together as some common entity is what doesn't encourage users to adopt safe computer practices, instead relying on the snake oil sold by Intego and other FUD spreaders to "keep them safe".
Know thy enemy.
It's not. You don't defend against viruses the way you do against worms the way you do against trojans. The distinction is important as the infection vectors differs and the defense mechanism also differ.
To lump all malware together as some common entity is what doesn't encourage users to adopt safe computer practices, instead relying on the snake oil sold by Intego and other FUD spreaders to "keep them safe".
Know thy enemy.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 03:04 AM
Just one tidbit of information if anyone is considerng a DVI-DL switch for their 30" (Dell or Apple) displays...
DO NOT buy the Gefen 2x1 switcher. It's based on a previous chipset that requires the user to disassemble the unit to adjust an internal sync knob! Additionally, it requires the use of two external dials (one for each input) to try and synchronize the signal!!! There isn't enough adjustment in all three dials to make much difference and while I could sync either my PC or my G5 quad just fine, I couldn't get them both to sync at all.
The 4x1 switcher is new hardware that auto syncs as it should and it works great.
These switchers come with DVI-DL cables, but if you need longer ones, buy cables from www.monoprice.com -- great cables, they work wonderfully and they have the best prices by far. Sorry for the shameless plug, but I can't stand overpaying for cables and I'm not affiliated with that store in any way. Also a gread source for cables if you just want to run your monitor farther away from your computer because it only comes with a 2M cable.
Oh, and you must have a DVI-DL source to connect to both the Dell and the Apple 30". If your system only has regular DVI, it will not work, you will get a garbage signal. Even if you run at a lower resolution that standard DVI supports, these two displays only accept a DVI-DL connection. It's a bunch of crap that it works that way, but just thought I'd give everyone a heads-up who may not have experience with them. When Apple and Dell say it needs a DVI-DL interface, it's not that they want you to buy a new video card, it's that these displays truly do require one.
DO NOT buy the Gefen 2x1 switcher. It's based on a previous chipset that requires the user to disassemble the unit to adjust an internal sync knob! Additionally, it requires the use of two external dials (one for each input) to try and synchronize the signal!!! There isn't enough adjustment in all three dials to make much difference and while I could sync either my PC or my G5 quad just fine, I couldn't get them both to sync at all.
The 4x1 switcher is new hardware that auto syncs as it should and it works great.
These switchers come with DVI-DL cables, but if you need longer ones, buy cables from www.monoprice.com -- great cables, they work wonderfully and they have the best prices by far. Sorry for the shameless plug, but I can't stand overpaying for cables and I'm not affiliated with that store in any way. Also a gread source for cables if you just want to run your monitor farther away from your computer because it only comes with a 2M cable.
Oh, and you must have a DVI-DL source to connect to both the Dell and the Apple 30". If your system only has regular DVI, it will not work, you will get a garbage signal. Even if you run at a lower resolution that standard DVI supports, these two displays only accept a DVI-DL connection. It's a bunch of crap that it works that way, but just thought I'd give everyone a heads-up who may not have experience with them. When Apple and Dell say it needs a DVI-DL interface, it's not that they want you to buy a new video card, it's that these displays truly do require one.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 01:42 PM
umm, everything? Did you read the bit I quoted from you?
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 09:06 AM
I don't have a link for you but I too remember them saying you could run the entire app from the keyboard though I don't remember them specifically mentioning customizing hotkeys.
Yeah I figured as much.
Apple, Adobe, and a few others are starting to roll out with new products/apps/services and what not yet don't give us endusers much to go on besides what they mention to us briefly.
I am still waiting for answer to Thunderbolt ports being accidentally removed and Adobe doesn't give much on it's new subscription service. I'll just add FCPX details to the list.
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
As a content creator . . . I refuse to watch video that was shot out of someone's purse/man-bag.
I'd be stoked if it wasn't just the top left corner of the screen.
Yeah I figured as much.
Apple, Adobe, and a few others are starting to roll out with new products/apps/services and what not yet don't give us endusers much to go on besides what they mention to us briefly.
I am still waiting for answer to Thunderbolt ports being accidentally removed and Adobe doesn't give much on it's new subscription service. I'll just add FCPX details to the list.
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
As a content creator . . . I refuse to watch video that was shot out of someone's purse/man-bag.
I'd be stoked if it wasn't just the top left corner of the screen.
UnixMac
Oct 12, 05:49 PM
You guys lost me and prolly (I like that, Prolly) about 90% of this forum....
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
ksegel
Nov 10, 12:58 PM
I have the iphone 3gs, and at&t has never been able to get their act together with the iPhone but with the os upgrades service seems to keep getting worse.
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
MacinDoc
Oct 26, 12:22 AM
Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.
OllyW
Oct 8, 07:11 AM
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
They already have the major networks in Europe.
The four major European networks, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange, and Telefonica (O2), are all planning to launch handsets powered by the Android platform during the second half of 2009. (http://www.talkandroid.com/1364-european-networks-shift-to-android/)
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
They already have the major networks in Europe.
The four major European networks, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange, and Telefonica (O2), are all planning to launch handsets powered by the Android platform during the second half of 2009. (http://www.talkandroid.com/1364-european-networks-shift-to-android/)
markcres
May 2, 10:52 AM
What an amazing coincidence this is being publicised by Intego...who just happen to sell AV software!
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 12:40 PM
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
Iscariot
Mar 24, 11:34 PM
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
rdowty
Mar 14, 06:13 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.
ddtlm
Oct 13, 02:27 PM
Sherman:
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
No comments:
Post a Comment