Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:07 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.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
nick9191
Apr 22, 11:44 PM
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 01:42 PM
Roscoe Wind Farm, which is the largest wind farm in the world, provides only 781.5 MW of power while Fukushima I for example, provides 4.7 GW (over six times as much). That wind farm takes 400km^2 so a wind farm that could replace the Fukushima I would take 2400km^2.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
Hence why I said in 'larger part' and not 'exclusively'.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
Hence why I said in 'larger part' and not 'exclusively'.
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
TheSlush
Oct 8, 11:11 AM
Gartner's crazy.
Diavilo1
Sep 12, 03:21 PM
Definately has piqued my interest. I may have missed this but does it have a TV Tuner?
Silentwave
Jul 13, 08:35 AM
and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
jayducharme
May 5, 02:26 PM
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
balamw
Sep 20, 07:51 PM
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
ksz
Nov 2, 06:51 PM
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
This page (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866&p=2) from Anandtech, describing power consumption on Kentsfield, brings up the issue of independently varying clock frequency and voltage per core, something that is rather tough to implement. Even at 65nm Intel could do what AMD will do in Barcelona, which is to implement independent clocks for each core.
This page (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866&p=2) from Anandtech, describing power consumption on Kentsfield, brings up the issue of independently varying clock frequency and voltage per core, something that is rather tough to implement. Even at 65nm Intel could do what AMD will do in Barcelona, which is to implement independent clocks for each core.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 09:34 AM
Anyone know the current price of each 2.66GHz Woodcrest? I just got up and am too lazy to Google yet.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
joeboy_45101
Aug 29, 01:00 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
I agree. Trust me I am no fan of GreenPeace's tactics, but what benefit does GreenPeace get out of making this report? And why do so many conservatives like to say that the enviromentalists' are just making this stuff up to get money. ENVIROMENTALISTS' DON'T MAKE SH#$ FOR MONEY! Now, if you think about Big Oil or Chinese sweatshops they've got every reason to say this stuff is untrue because they could lose a lot of money from it.
Oh, and for all the people that make the claim, "destroying the environment is neccessary to keep business profitable", maybe we can go fishing in the Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea) sometime and work our differences out. Oh wait we can't!
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
I agree. Trust me I am no fan of GreenPeace's tactics, but what benefit does GreenPeace get out of making this report? And why do so many conservatives like to say that the enviromentalists' are just making this stuff up to get money. ENVIROMENTALISTS' DON'T MAKE SH#$ FOR MONEY! Now, if you think about Big Oil or Chinese sweatshops they've got every reason to say this stuff is untrue because they could lose a lot of money from it.
Oh, and for all the people that make the claim, "destroying the environment is neccessary to keep business profitable", maybe we can go fishing in the Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea) sometime and work our differences out. Oh wait we can't!
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:07 PM
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
How does Elgato not compete?
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
How does Elgato not compete?
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:41 PM
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 10:36 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
bugfaceuk
Apr 10, 07:00 AM
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:57 AM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
javajedi
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
bigwig
Oct 27, 06:08 PM
Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?
I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.
I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.
cartwagon
Sep 20, 01:32 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
Edit:
@Ino: Yes, you are correct, I wrote this yesterday before seeing that diagram. However, it has an HDMI output, but the iTunes store only puts out normal TV quality(currently). In essence, unless you are using Handbrake to make your own rips above 640x480, you can use your HDMI output and it does not matter. Since Job's whole plan here is to make us buy iTV and then only be able to buy from iTunes, this is very relevant. I know this release is months away and things may change before then. Whom do you think apple will bed with, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?
@ Project: Quicktime can do .wmv with Flip4Mac, but cannot play .avi. (or .bin or .rm) . The 3ivx codec patch only works for some avi files. There is a convoluted way to use DivX doctor to make .mov files, but there is no reason to bother. MPlayer and VLC take care of everything. My point is that I don't think I need to pay $299US for something that does only a third of what my xbox already does, and I also don't need to pay this exorbitant amount for the privilege of boxing myself into a corner where I can only buy movies from the iTunes store. Even if I wasn't using my xbox to stream and play everything, I'd still save my money and press play on MPlayer and then sit down. Know what I mean? We all have a way of playing media on our TVs already, even if it's a total welfare solution like $6 worth of RCA cable. I am usually pretty pro-apple, but I need to be more impressed to drop that kind of money on something like this.
Much love for you all,
cartwagon
Edit:
@Ino: Yes, you are correct, I wrote this yesterday before seeing that diagram. However, it has an HDMI output, but the iTunes store only puts out normal TV quality(currently). In essence, unless you are using Handbrake to make your own rips above 640x480, you can use your HDMI output and it does not matter. Since Job's whole plan here is to make us buy iTV and then only be able to buy from iTunes, this is very relevant. I know this release is months away and things may change before then. Whom do you think apple will bed with, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?
@ Project: Quicktime can do .wmv with Flip4Mac, but cannot play .avi. (or .bin or .rm) . The 3ivx codec patch only works for some avi files. There is a convoluted way to use DivX doctor to make .mov files, but there is no reason to bother. MPlayer and VLC take care of everything. My point is that I don't think I need to pay $299US for something that does only a third of what my xbox already does, and I also don't need to pay this exorbitant amount for the privilege of boxing myself into a corner where I can only buy movies from the iTunes store. Even if I wasn't using my xbox to stream and play everything, I'd still save my money and press play on MPlayer and then sit down. Know what I mean? We all have a way of playing media on our TVs already, even if it's a total welfare solution like $6 worth of RCA cable. I am usually pretty pro-apple, but I need to be more impressed to drop that kind of money on something like this.
Much love for you all,
cartwagon
Bonte
Sep 20, 10:47 AM
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar