medium hairstyles for women
spillproof
Oct 7, 10:44 AM
Other expected improvements in Android for its application store and development environment will be "backed by the power of Google's search engine,"
As in web apps?
As in web apps?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:28 AM
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
I cited that verses for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
I cited that verses for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
tigress666
Apr 9, 12:36 AM
I got far more enjoyment out of Infinity Blade for 6 dollars than I did out of Pilot Wings Resort 3DS for 40 dollars...just sayin.
They want 40 dollars for *that*? I went to go play with a 3DS and it had the pilot wings resort game. It came off as a very cheapy game (I was wishing they had something more interesting as a demo *sigh*)...
I have several games on my iphone that I'd play for a lot longer including some puzzle games (boxed in, Sudoko, Myst), some that were ported over (Final Fantasy II, Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed), simulators (Asphalt 5, Need for Speed Shift). The most expensive of those was FFII at 8 or so dollars (and I got it on sale for 5!), and some were free (Sudoko, Boxed In) and many were .99 (on sale. If you like Gameloft games such as PoP and Assassin's Creed and Asphalt 5, if you wait and watch you can generally get them for a buck *grin*).
And that's just the ones I've started (Squaresoft and Gameloft both had sales recently so I picked up 5 or 6 games, mostly rpgs, all for less than 20 bux plus still have some other Gameloft games i bought I haven't gotten to, like Hero of Spartan II. Plus I got Riven for 3 dollars).
Yeah, sure, no touch controls. But the controls are decent enough that they don't take too much away from the fun and the games are still fun and I'll take the slightly less good controls for the much bigger difference in price. Especially if they are charging 40 dollars for something like Pilot Wings resort, something I'd probably only put on my iphone if they had it free for a day.
Anyways, I won't trade my iphone for the 3Ds even just for gaming purposes. Unless the 3DS actually gets good games, but in general I usually find Nintendo gets cheesy crap. I think I'd be much more excited over Sony's new handheld whenever it comes out. But, my iphone is good enough and it is a lot more portable (it's smaller than either and will fit in my pocket) and the games are cheaper so I'm happy enough with it. If i had disposable income I might consider the Sony as well (maybe, it looks kinda sizable and I honestly like my iphone as a gaming machine partly cause it is small enough to go everywhere with me as it fits in my purse. Shoot, all the games can easily come with me too cause I don't have to carry a bunch of cartridges, they're already loaded in).
They want 40 dollars for *that*? I went to go play with a 3DS and it had the pilot wings resort game. It came off as a very cheapy game (I was wishing they had something more interesting as a demo *sigh*)...
I have several games on my iphone that I'd play for a lot longer including some puzzle games (boxed in, Sudoko, Myst), some that were ported over (Final Fantasy II, Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed), simulators (Asphalt 5, Need for Speed Shift). The most expensive of those was FFII at 8 or so dollars (and I got it on sale for 5!), and some were free (Sudoko, Boxed In) and many were .99 (on sale. If you like Gameloft games such as PoP and Assassin's Creed and Asphalt 5, if you wait and watch you can generally get them for a buck *grin*).
And that's just the ones I've started (Squaresoft and Gameloft both had sales recently so I picked up 5 or 6 games, mostly rpgs, all for less than 20 bux plus still have some other Gameloft games i bought I haven't gotten to, like Hero of Spartan II. Plus I got Riven for 3 dollars).
Yeah, sure, no touch controls. But the controls are decent enough that they don't take too much away from the fun and the games are still fun and I'll take the slightly less good controls for the much bigger difference in price. Especially if they are charging 40 dollars for something like Pilot Wings resort, something I'd probably only put on my iphone if they had it free for a day.
Anyways, I won't trade my iphone for the 3Ds even just for gaming purposes. Unless the 3DS actually gets good games, but in general I usually find Nintendo gets cheesy crap. I think I'd be much more excited over Sony's new handheld whenever it comes out. But, my iphone is good enough and it is a lot more portable (it's smaller than either and will fit in my pocket) and the games are cheaper so I'm happy enough with it. If i had disposable income I might consider the Sony as well (maybe, it looks kinda sizable and I honestly like my iphone as a gaming machine partly cause it is small enough to go everywhere with me as it fits in my purse. Shoot, all the games can easily come with me too cause I don't have to carry a bunch of cartridges, they're already loaded in).
SLR2009
Jun 19, 10:08 PM
I've been getting dropped calls on my Iphone 3GS as well but it's gotten much worse over the last few months. It's gotten so bad that I'm hesitating in purchasing an Iphone 4G and was considering very strongly in switching over to a droid phone. AT&T's dropped calls are unacceptable.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 08:08 PM
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Sorry I have such a small brain.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Sorry I have such a small brain.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
Demoman
Jul 12, 09:11 AM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine too. I have a quad right beside it, but I only fire that up for rendering/compressing or when I want to work the video and sound/animation concurrently. I will buy another PM as I am doing more motion graphics and would like to throw another 4 processors at it. If the new high-end Intel looks good, I will get one. But, I might also look to pick-up a super deal on a PPC Quad. Love those machines!
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine too. I have a quad right beside it, but I only fire that up for rendering/compressing or when I want to work the video and sound/animation concurrently. I will buy another PM as I am doing more motion graphics and would like to throw another 4 processors at it. If the new high-end Intel looks good, I will get one. But, I might also look to pick-up a super deal on a PPC Quad. Love those machines!
shawnce
Oct 29, 10:23 AM
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
We can't answer that question without knowing what you want to do with the system... it fully depends on the work loads you plan to throw at it. In some cases fewer faster cores makes sense in others more, even if slower (lower clocked), cores makes sense.
We can't answer that question without knowing what you want to do with the system... it fully depends on the work loads you plan to throw at it. In some cases fewer faster cores makes sense in others more, even if slower (lower clocked), cores makes sense.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:19 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:30 AM
I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
ghostlyorb
Mar 18, 07:53 AM
I hope not =/ this would suck. Good thing I BARELY ever use MyWi... but can they make me switch to a tethering plan? Not without my authorization.. hah!
Marx55
Sep 20, 04:12 AM
What iTV needs is the option to boot Mac OS X to be used as a wireless computerless presentation remote tool. Just plug the flash disk with the Keynote or PowerPoint presentation made on a Mac or PC-Windows and use the remote control to give the presentation. Great for corporations, education and domestic markets. With a huge halo effect. Apple will sell millions.
840quadra
Apr 29, 10:48 PM
First off, attitude aside, my calling the iPod's overall populairity a Fad is personal opinion, not a fact. Don't take it so personally. ;)
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
If you don't believe me, there's plenty of history to read. Just go look at the following industries that were disrupted by technology...
medium hairstyles for round
Beautiful Long Hairstyles
Medium Hair Styles
Medium Bob Haircut with Brown
medium hair styles for women
2011 Women Medium Hairstyles
blumpy
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 25, 05:11 AM
It's funny how the only place that people are unhappy with AT&T service and the iPhone is in surveys and on these forums.
While I won't pretend I read that entire, giant block of unformatted text, I will say that this is hardly the only place people complain about AT&T service. Though there are undoubtedly people that get great service and rarely drop calls on the carrier, AT&T service is almost universally disliked and has become the butt of many jokes, both on and off the Internet.
Agree about the iPhone, though I suspect most of the complaining here is due to the fact that people rarely sign up for a message board account (you being a notable exception, of course) just to say that everything is fine.
While I won't pretend I read that entire, giant block of unformatted text, I will say that this is hardly the only place people complain about AT&T service. Though there are undoubtedly people that get great service and rarely drop calls on the carrier, AT&T service is almost universally disliked and has become the butt of many jokes, both on and off the Internet.
Agree about the iPhone, though I suspect most of the complaining here is due to the fact that people rarely sign up for a message board account (you being a notable exception, of course) just to say that everything is fine.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:46 PM
It is not subverted -- it is evolved. My clients -- the content providers and advertisers -- demand viral marketing efforts -- they are ahead of the curve: they want what works, they want the uTube factor, not yesterday's in your face ads.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 01:26 PM
I'd agree with you. Look at the craigslist computer forum and you'll see a high number of non-tech savvy folk. He's just making a gross generalization or taking a small % and extrapolating it to the whole, both of which are flawed.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Every time I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
Doesn't everybody turn their computer on the side?
I alternate, so put it on the right on odd days on the left on even days.
That way my neck doesn't get strained so much when I have to read something on the screen.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Every time I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
Doesn't everybody turn their computer on the side?
I alternate, so put it on the right on odd days on the left on even days.
That way my neck doesn't get strained so much when I have to read something on the screen.
zero2dash
Jul 13, 10:47 AM
Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Rafterman
Apr 13, 07:54 AM
$199 would be OK for a high quality consumer editing package. But $299 is still a bit steep, unless you are a Pro. But if you are a Pro, you are probably turned off by some of the product's dumbing down. So I am not sure who Apple is trying to appeal to here.
ideal.dreams
May 2, 09:08 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox. Safari is bloated in my opinion anyways.
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
CalBoy
Mar 25, 11:09 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
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.
Apple OC
Mar 12, 02:48 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8008582
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
braddouglass
Apr 10, 04:12 PM
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
They're mostly the same, just replace [ctrl]+ with [command] ie [ctrl]+[c] is just [command]+[c]
They're mostly the same, just replace [ctrl]+ with [command] ie [ctrl]+[c] is just [command]+[c]
0 تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق
الاشتراك في تعليقات الرسالة [Atom]
<< الصفحة الرئيسية