sprakope
Aug 29, 11:21 AM
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.
[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]
Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.
[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]
bigwig
Oct 27, 05:43 PM
That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.
Scaling isn't really a product of your scheduler, it's a product of eliminating bottlenecks to multiple threads of execution. I'm glad that Apple is working on this. I didn't come up with this from whole cloth or animosity towards Apple, I saw several benchmarks showing how poorly OSX scaled, which I hope are now out of date.
I mentioned SGI several times here because I used to do kernel work for them, so I have a real good idea what it takes to scale performance on large (256-1024 CPU) systems. Btw, that's not a cluster, that's a single kernel being shared by all processors.
Scaling isn't really a product of your scheduler, it's a product of eliminating bottlenecks to multiple threads of execution. I'm glad that Apple is working on this. I didn't come up with this from whole cloth or animosity towards Apple, I saw several benchmarks showing how poorly OSX scaled, which I hope are now out of date.
I mentioned SGI several times here because I used to do kernel work for them, so I have a real good idea what it takes to scale performance on large (256-1024 CPU) systems. Btw, that's not a cluster, that's a single kernel being shared by all processors.
jrhone
Jul 11, 11:06 PM
AWESOME.....I will buy one as SOON as its released.....Logic Pro with Woodcrest......YUMMMM.....
Sydde
Mar 25, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=CaoCao;12258425]Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public/QUOTE]
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
CaoCao
Mar 26, 09:07 PM
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 05:05 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 10:08 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
LMAO! I have an Apple sticker a friend gave me, does that count? :D
What's wrong with that? I may not own a particular product but like being in X products forums to learn about it.
I find that it's a great way to learn about products that I'm interested in.
LMAO! I have an Apple sticker a friend gave me, does that count? :D
What's wrong with that? I may not own a particular product but like being in X products forums to learn about it.
I find that it's a great way to learn about products that I'm interested in.
citizenzen
Apr 27, 08:55 AM
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
By the same measure, any human endeavor can be said to be inspired by God.
And seeing how many athletes celebrate after making a score, it would seem that might be the case. ;)
Citizenzen, did you read the second pdf document about what happened in Lanciano, Italy?
Yes. What part of it is a result of a scientific study?
By the same measure, any human endeavor can be said to be inspired by God.
And seeing how many athletes celebrate after making a score, it would seem that might be the case. ;)
Citizenzen, did you read the second pdf document about what happened in Lanciano, Italy?
Yes. What part of it is a result of a scientific study?
IBradMac
May 5, 08:38 PM
AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls
Four years now. wow.
Four years now. wow.
Man4allsea
Feb 17, 12:17 AM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 02:42 PM
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 12:03 PM
Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
Multimedia
Oct 12, 01:40 PM
Forgot they are removing the cost of the pair of 2.66GHz Woodies. So the configure Processor lines should probably be only:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
myamid
Sep 12, 06:54 PM
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
Multimedia
Oct 30, 09:44 PM
The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:
Is this really true?No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for different client projects.maxupgrades.com (http://maxupgrades.com) should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.Good to know.
Just noticed 1-8004MEMORY is now selling 4GB KIT (2GBX2) DDR2 667 ECC FULLY BUFFERED FOR APPLE MAC PRO for only $690 each via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459) . This makes 2GB sticks now lower crossover price per GB - $172.50 each - vs. 1GB sticks which are priced more than $200 each now. Happy days are here again!
But not sure if heatsinks are included. Can't tell without calling them tomorrow.
Then I would add a pair of $75 MaxSink Heatsinks (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=157) for a total of $765 per 2x2GB kit still only $191.25/GB.
Or just get the MaxSinks already installed properly with 2 Samsung 2GB sticks for $789 from MaxUpgrades.com.
So a 6GB 8-Core Mac Pro is looking like about $4500 to me now.
Is this really true?No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for different client projects.maxupgrades.com (http://maxupgrades.com) should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.Good to know.
Just noticed 1-8004MEMORY is now selling 4GB KIT (2GBX2) DDR2 667 ECC FULLY BUFFERED FOR APPLE MAC PRO for only $690 each via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459) . This makes 2GB sticks now lower crossover price per GB - $172.50 each - vs. 1GB sticks which are priced more than $200 each now. Happy days are here again!
But not sure if heatsinks are included. Can't tell without calling them tomorrow.
Then I would add a pair of $75 MaxSink Heatsinks (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=157) for a total of $765 per 2x2GB kit still only $191.25/GB.
Or just get the MaxSinks already installed properly with 2 Samsung 2GB sticks for $789 from MaxUpgrades.com.
So a 6GB 8-Core Mac Pro is looking like about $4500 to me now.
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?
jettredmont
May 2, 11:50 AM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
I don't believe the default .zip file handler will expand these zip files correctly. It will only unzip inside its own folder. At least, that used to be the case. Perhaps there is an exploitable bug there which has cropped up more recently.
I suspect they are taking advantage of one of the other security holes in OS X to get items added to login items, etc. Presumably this is at the user level only so I'm not sure even a "standard" user will be less at risk (there are minor differences between admin and standard users, such as needing permission to add something to /Applications, but if the malware here (it isn't a virus as it doesn't self-propagate; it isn't a trojan as it isn't disguised on entry) relies on that permission it was just poorly written. Each user has an Applications folder that even standard users can write to.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
I don't believe the default .zip file handler will expand these zip files correctly. It will only unzip inside its own folder. At least, that used to be the case. Perhaps there is an exploitable bug there which has cropped up more recently.
I suspect they are taking advantage of one of the other security holes in OS X to get items added to login items, etc. Presumably this is at the user level only so I'm not sure even a "standard" user will be less at risk (there are minor differences between admin and standard users, such as needing permission to add something to /Applications, but if the malware here (it isn't a virus as it doesn't self-propagate; it isn't a trojan as it isn't disguised on entry) relies on that permission it was just poorly written. Each user has an Applications folder that even standard users can write to.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:56 PM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
fivepoint
Mar 16, 11:25 AM
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:07 AM
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
mixel
Apr 10, 10:36 AM
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
UnixMac
Oct 7, 07:54 PM
Hi AtomBoy......great english for being from Japan, or are you an ex-pat?
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar