eawmp1
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
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.
jayducharme
Oct 7, 05:04 PM
I have no doubt Android will surpass the iPhone in terms of user numbers. Will it surpass in quality? That remains to be seen...
Even if it does surpass in the number of users, since when has Apple been solely concerned about numbers? Quality of design really does seem to be an obsession with Apple. When the iPhone was first released, didn't Jobs state that he would be happy with 1% of the cell phone market? He's already surpassed that. Just as with their computers, Apple has never positioned itself as a mass market brand for everybody. They have opened the floodgates on the smart phone market, but I don't think they ever intended to dominate it. They simply want to provide the best experience, and that in turn brings them discriminating customers.
Even if it does surpass in the number of users, since when has Apple been solely concerned about numbers? Quality of design really does seem to be an obsession with Apple. When the iPhone was first released, didn't Jobs state that he would be happy with 1% of the cell phone market? He's already surpassed that. Just as with their computers, Apple has never positioned itself as a mass market brand for everybody. They have opened the floodgates on the smart phone market, but I don't think they ever intended to dominate it. They simply want to provide the best experience, and that in turn brings them discriminating customers.
Reach
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
FSUSem1noles
Mar 18, 08:13 AM
Bye, Bye, MyWi and TetherMe...
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:58 AM
A lot of people seem to believe Greenpeace has fabricated their data. (Which would be pretty stupid since it can be checked!) But if so, why not put Dell at the bottom for publicity purposes? That makes more sense than Acer if this is all lies instead of research.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
zwida
Oct 25, 10:26 PM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
xiaoyu04
Oct 25, 10:21 PM
wow, that was a fast announcement? if i remember correctly the clovertons come out mid nov don't they?
BigDukeSix
Apr 24, 06:21 PM
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
larger cover
Wedding DVD cover
Wedding DVD Covers (Vol-1)
DVD Cover Design. Well, By now Im sure youve seen the photos from Kirti+Paresh#39;s wonderful wedding. If not, you can check out the post here.
Wedding Cover DVD And Cover
wedding dvd cover template.
dvd cover design software.
Hahaha. redo my DVD Wedding
Wedding DVD cover
DVD Cover Design Designed and
unlinked
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Eso
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:49 AM
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.
Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent. (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html)
Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !
I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !
Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums :eek: )
Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. ;)
...truly enough.
Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.
Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent. (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html)
Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !
I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !
Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums :eek: )
Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. ;)
...truly enough.
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
NikeTalk
Mar 18, 09:40 AM
That guy that used 90GBs should be the first one converted.
retroneo
Oct 8, 12:49 AM
If the day comes when an Android phone is as good as an iPhone, then it will be the service provider that will be the tipping point. AT&T better get their act together!
Donut has just been released this month.
Next year will see the release of Eclair and Flan. There will also be many Android handsets that use the Snapdragon processor, which has more than enough speed to handle Android with the same fluidity as the 3GS.
The Snapdragon processor is an ARM design similar to the Cortex A9 (two-issue out-of-order) and starts at 1GHz, but uses less power as it includes the baseband processor. There are already handsets shipping using it, not Android ones yet.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
Competition is a good thing! Look how cool all these gadgets we all have in our pockets now, and think how neat they are going to be in just another 18 months!
Apple would be very sensible to add a $2 1700MHz power amplifier that works with T-Mobile USA, and end exclusivity in that market to promote competition.
Donut has just been released this month.
Next year will see the release of Eclair and Flan. There will also be many Android handsets that use the Snapdragon processor, which has more than enough speed to handle Android with the same fluidity as the 3GS.
The Snapdragon processor is an ARM design similar to the Cortex A9 (two-issue out-of-order) and starts at 1GHz, but uses less power as it includes the baseband processor. There are already handsets shipping using it, not Android ones yet.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
Competition is a good thing! Look how cool all these gadgets we all have in our pockets now, and think how neat they are going to be in just another 18 months!
Apple would be very sensible to add a $2 1700MHz power amplifier that works with T-Mobile USA, and end exclusivity in that market to promote competition.
SPUY767
Sep 26, 10:40 AM
Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
grue
Apr 13, 12:04 AM
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
rxse7en
Oct 11, 02:30 PM
Got my coupon and tested it. It doesn't stack...total price is $1349.00
B
B
Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:55 AM
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
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.
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
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.
Machead III
Sep 20, 06:05 AM
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:58 AM
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
Whats the line in the sand? Are Gay men, simply men who find other men attractive? Do they share partial brain chemistry similar to a woman? Are some Gay Men "women trapped in men's bodies"? None of the above? We havent walked in their shoes...so defining what IS and ISNT a disease is pretty ignorant. glad we're all talking about these issues though...stay well friend and keep posting! :)
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
Al Coholic
Apr 28, 11:16 AM
To all that insist your Apple kool-aide glass is "half full" I say…
…whatever floats your boat.
But… 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
After the MS Vista debacle, Steve was handed a CEO's dream to make macs a full contender in the PC arena (or at least a big thorn in the ass) but he chose a different path. A fruitful path to be sure but mac penetration alone today could easily read 15% along side all the iOS success.
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Any CEO who couldn't manage this with 35 billion in cash (at the time of Vista) should be grilled by the Board. Of course he blew it in '83 as well so why am I surprised?
Rolling out Leopard in '07 had the potential to at least be a tiny nail for the Vista/Windows coffin but Steve couldn't wield the hammer. Instead we get a pathetic followup to Leopard so dismal in features Apple admits it doesn't warrant a new name. They even apologize in advance by making it only a $29 upgrade. And now in 2011 and we'll get iLion. It's all about iOS folks. And Apple has shown it doesn't multitask very well.
My family has macs, iPhones, iPods, even an iPad. But with all these iDevices, we always gravitate to the macs to actually get something useful done. They are the mothership for all that we do… the real muscle, the "bread and butter" of our productivity-based lives. Ironically, if it weren't for Apple's adversary in the industry and their office suite... a few of us would still be forced to use Windows exclusively.
I'm sure Apple can do better with macs in the enterprise market but either they don't want to or don't know how. Either of which is troubling. To me, it's clear they will always be a general consumer company that's perfectly content with a user base who spends its time face-booking, twittering and playing with pissed off cartoon birds.
What Apple hasn't figured out though is that one day we grow up and need something else.
…whatever floats your boat.
But… 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
After the MS Vista debacle, Steve was handed a CEO's dream to make macs a full contender in the PC arena (or at least a big thorn in the ass) but he chose a different path. A fruitful path to be sure but mac penetration alone today could easily read 15% along side all the iOS success.
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Any CEO who couldn't manage this with 35 billion in cash (at the time of Vista) should be grilled by the Board. Of course he blew it in '83 as well so why am I surprised?
Rolling out Leopard in '07 had the potential to at least be a tiny nail for the Vista/Windows coffin but Steve couldn't wield the hammer. Instead we get a pathetic followup to Leopard so dismal in features Apple admits it doesn't warrant a new name. They even apologize in advance by making it only a $29 upgrade. And now in 2011 and we'll get iLion. It's all about iOS folks. And Apple has shown it doesn't multitask very well.
My family has macs, iPhones, iPods, even an iPad. But with all these iDevices, we always gravitate to the macs to actually get something useful done. They are the mothership for all that we do… the real muscle, the "bread and butter" of our productivity-based lives. Ironically, if it weren't for Apple's adversary in the industry and their office suite... a few of us would still be forced to use Windows exclusively.
I'm sure Apple can do better with macs in the enterprise market but either they don't want to or don't know how. Either of which is troubling. To me, it's clear they will always be a general consumer company that's perfectly content with a user base who spends its time face-booking, twittering and playing with pissed off cartoon birds.
What Apple hasn't figured out though is that one day we grow up and need something else.
