Mord
Mar 13, 02:55 PM
Traditional light water fission? No, I'm generally against it.
Modern reactors that process spent fuel and thorium cycle reactors? Hell yes.
Writing off nuclear in all it's forms is like writing off the future of the human race, we just need to go for sensible safe reactor designs and hopefully develop fusion to the point of being a practical solution.
The vast majority of nuclear power plants are designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium, these designs are neither particularly safe or efficient and there are far far better options.
Modern reactors that process spent fuel and thorium cycle reactors? Hell yes.
Writing off nuclear in all it's forms is like writing off the future of the human race, we just need to go for sensible safe reactor designs and hopefully develop fusion to the point of being a practical solution.
The vast majority of nuclear power plants are designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium, these designs are neither particularly safe or efficient and there are far far better options.
Soculese
Sep 21, 10:58 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
OK, the tivo has a remote, but I NEVER use it to pick programs to record. I use the tivo.com website to do this. I would think that since the iTV will connect via wireless to your computer that you could do the same with it.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
OK, the tivo has a remote, but I NEVER use it to pick programs to record. I use the tivo.com website to do this. I would think that since the iTV will connect via wireless to your computer that you could do the same with it.
rasmasyean
Mar 11, 10:17 PM
Wikipedia seems to be kept up to date. If you have something new, maybe you guys can add it to this...if someone didn't beat you to it. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 26, 07:34 AM
Interesting question. One of my thoughts on why people follow a religion are that they were raised with it, so it becomes a tradition. You just do it because you always have done it without much thought to it. This one is an especially hard reason to overcome, because as a child, you want to believe that your parents and family have all the answers. It's hard to admit that they don't or that they led you down a wrong path. But you have to ask yourself, if you crash landed on an island as a small child (a la Blue Lagoon), would you be following Islam, Christianity or any of the established religions? No, you would not. You wouldn't even KNOW about them. So religion is largely handed down socially. It's even geographical in nature to a large extent.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
gorgeousninja
Apr 13, 10:42 AM
So we have the usual posts from those who follow the old
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
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.
Cape Cod Rick
Jul 7, 06:00 AM
I love my new IPhone 4. However, I am dropping many more calls with the IPhone 4 than I did with IPhone 3G!! Yesterday, my phone dropped 3 calls- even when I was holding the phone with only two fingers and away from the bottom!!
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 01:24 AM
I made a joke before about what the hell anyone would need with 8 cores, but the truth is that I've been doing so much simultaneous photo, PS/InD, video at work this past couple weeks that I'm constantly taxing the 2GHz dual G5 w/ 4.5GB of RAM.. I mean like grinding it to a halt. Same with my MacBook, and don't even get me started on my iMac G5 Rev C.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 09:09 AM
Originally Posted by MH01 View Post
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:38 AM
OMG you still done get it:
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 08:07 AM
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
truz
Jul 7, 06:14 PM
And I will never set foot in an Apple store again. They are the definition of needless, bulls**t arrogance. If my Macbook Pro, either Macbook, iMac, iPad or any of the 5 iPhones I own ever need serviced, I'll call and ask them to send a box rather than deal with that mall trash again.
I agree. I rather have a box sent out then step into a store. I'm 45 minutes away from an Apple Store and a boat load of traffic in the Orlando area.
I agree. I rather have a box sent out then step into a store. I'm 45 minutes away from an Apple Store and a boat load of traffic in the Orlando area.
Multimedia
Oct 21, 01:07 PM
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.I doubt anything with the Mac Pro will change (other than the CPUs) when the 8-core models ship. Intel originally was very committed to using the FB-DIMM type RAM in their systems for the next couple years. However, they have since backtracked on that and said that they will continue to explore other options. Who knows what that means... I thik it means that we'll probably see DDR3 on mid-range systems in '07, probably in notebooks as well at some point mid to late year. But I would guess that for the foreseeable future, FB-DIMM is the standard for Xeon workstations and servers, so Mac Pro and XServer should continue with this type of RAM for a while. When Intel finally shifts to the new 45nm process sometime mid/late next year, then all bets are off as they will need to increase bandwidth for both the RAM and FSB to keep in step with CPU growth.Zactly. Waiting for prices to change is probably an act of futility other than waiting for an 8-core refurb. The 3GHz Woody Mac Pro Refurb is $3299 which would compare to the 2.33GHz Clovertown. So there isn't going to be a lot of "savings" waiting for the refurbs which probably won't show up until late January at the soonest. Can you afford to be without all that power in the meantime? I can't wait.
Elfear
Nov 1, 03:24 PM
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
ATD
Sep 26, 04:15 PM
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 13, 01:29 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
Sodner
Apr 21, 07:30 AM
So this site is for fanboys only?
No HATERS are welcome as well.
No HATERS are welcome as well.
jayenh
Feb 24, 08:44 AM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:04 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
I think technology has to advance first and we got no choice but to be patient.
- Clean coal and coal capture tech needs to advance so we know what to do with the extracted carbon. Right now it just sits underground, like nuclear waste and we hope it doesn't leak.
- Nuclear waste treatment tech needs to advance so the decay rate of waste can be accelerated, and the amount of waste reduced
- Grid energy storage tech needs to advance so renewables can be integrated into base load and we can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
- Smartgrid tech needs to get integrated. For everyone worried about electricity consumption, Smartgrid is an answer.
And the things that are going on in Japan are a result of stupid engineering. The engineers did not design the plant to adequately protect the backup generator switchgear. If they did, there'd be no danger of a meltdown right now. And if what Goto said is correct, there's also an engineering ethics issue involved with the containment vessel not being designed to an appropriate standard. This is an example of why engineering is so damn important. Even with an earthquake or tsunami, this was totally preventable.
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
If you're talking about energy consumption, yeah, and that's primarily because of oil. If you're talking about electricity consumption, we're actually not that bad.
And the solution is to shift reliance on oil to reliance on electricity. Which is why electric vehicles are gonna be big in the future.
I think technology has to advance first and we got no choice but to be patient.
- Clean coal and coal capture tech needs to advance so we know what to do with the extracted carbon. Right now it just sits underground, like nuclear waste and we hope it doesn't leak.
- Nuclear waste treatment tech needs to advance so the decay rate of waste can be accelerated, and the amount of waste reduced
- Grid energy storage tech needs to advance so renewables can be integrated into base load and we can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
- Smartgrid tech needs to get integrated. For everyone worried about electricity consumption, Smartgrid is an answer.
And the things that are going on in Japan are a result of stupid engineering. The engineers did not design the plant to adequately protect the backup generator switchgear. If they did, there'd be no danger of a meltdown right now. And if what Goto said is correct, there's also an engineering ethics issue involved with the containment vessel not being designed to an appropriate standard. This is an example of why engineering is so damn important. Even with an earthquake or tsunami, this was totally preventable.
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
If you're talking about energy consumption, yeah, and that's primarily because of oil. If you're talking about electricity consumption, we're actually not that bad.
And the solution is to shift reliance on oil to reliance on electricity. Which is why electric vehicles are gonna be big in the future.
emil.lofman
Aug 29, 12:45 PM
Greenpeace can shove it.
Now that's an appropriate handle you've got there!
One question for you, and all other posters that in some words or other wants Greenpeace to f off...
Do you think that
a) Greenpeace is lying
or
b) it's pretty cool that the human race will soon be extinct?
Now that's an appropriate handle you've got there!
One question for you, and all other posters that in some words or other wants Greenpeace to f off...
Do you think that
a) Greenpeace is lying
or
b) it's pretty cool that the human race will soon be extinct?
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 03:08 PM
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 09:05 AM
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
Mooey
Apr 9, 03:33 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
for Nintendo.
Nintendo.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
for Nintendo.
Nintendo.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No comments:
Post a Comment