chatin
Apr 8, 11:54 PM
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death� on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 12:54 PM
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?If what you say is true, then yes that would be IT. Why won't Tigerton go in Summer '07 Mac Pros?
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?No I'm saying once you get used to the speed of a Quad and you have everyday need for all those cores, then ALL the single 2GHz DC or Dual Processor Macs are LAME. I happen to have found a burning need for as many cores as I can get my hands on this past Winter so when I turn to use the single 2GHz DC G5 PM it hits the wall of power needed in nothing flat and is crawling incredibly slowly toward the finish line all the time. Even it's basic responsiveness is considerably slower than that of the Quad's.
I'm crushing video constantly. Unusual power-all-the-time need. I need to run two, three, sometimes even four multi-core enabled processes simultaneously almost all the time and each one can use up to 3 even 4 cores on the Intel Mac Pro (I tested my apps on the Mac Pro in an Apple Store). So I am not saying it's not ok for email and browsing although that would not be possible on any of the DP or DC PMs while my video crushing operations are running as well.
That's what happend to me in January. I had a 2.5 GHz DP G5 PM and suddenly, as I really got this video crushing process rolling, I hit the wall and it was like being back in 1985 with a Mac Plus. NOTHING would work beyond crushing video very slowly. It scared me to death. In a panic, I ordered a refurb Quad G5 and thank God I did 'cause that old 2.5 GHz Dual Porcessor G5 was way underpowered for what I for what I was wanting to do all the time.
I recently went into a Fry's in Campbell just after the Mac Pros were announced. They had a sign up Apple PowerMac G5 $864.26 for the 2GHz DC same generation as the Quad but the bottom $2k model from last October '05. Couldn't pass it up. But I can tell you that it is very slow with very limited processing power compared to the Quad. I am a veteran G5 PM guy. I had the original 2GHz DP G5 like you still have, two 2.5GHz DP G5's, the Quad G5 and now most recetly, at a bargain I couldn't pass up, the 2GHz DC G5. I love 'em all. But they do not provide enough cores for the type of work I do a lot.
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?No I'm saying once you get used to the speed of a Quad and you have everyday need for all those cores, then ALL the single 2GHz DC or Dual Processor Macs are LAME. I happen to have found a burning need for as many cores as I can get my hands on this past Winter so when I turn to use the single 2GHz DC G5 PM it hits the wall of power needed in nothing flat and is crawling incredibly slowly toward the finish line all the time. Even it's basic responsiveness is considerably slower than that of the Quad's.
I'm crushing video constantly. Unusual power-all-the-time need. I need to run two, three, sometimes even four multi-core enabled processes simultaneously almost all the time and each one can use up to 3 even 4 cores on the Intel Mac Pro (I tested my apps on the Mac Pro in an Apple Store). So I am not saying it's not ok for email and browsing although that would not be possible on any of the DP or DC PMs while my video crushing operations are running as well.
That's what happend to me in January. I had a 2.5 GHz DP G5 PM and suddenly, as I really got this video crushing process rolling, I hit the wall and it was like being back in 1985 with a Mac Plus. NOTHING would work beyond crushing video very slowly. It scared me to death. In a panic, I ordered a refurb Quad G5 and thank God I did 'cause that old 2.5 GHz Dual Porcessor G5 was way underpowered for what I for what I was wanting to do all the time.
I recently went into a Fry's in Campbell just after the Mac Pros were announced. They had a sign up Apple PowerMac G5 $864.26 for the 2GHz DC same generation as the Quad but the bottom $2k model from last October '05. Couldn't pass it up. But I can tell you that it is very slow with very limited processing power compared to the Quad. I am a veteran G5 PM guy. I had the original 2GHz DP G5 like you still have, two 2.5GHz DP G5's, the Quad G5 and now most recetly, at a bargain I couldn't pass up, the 2GHz DC G5. I love 'em all. But they do not provide enough cores for the type of work I do a lot.
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.
miles01110
Apr 28, 07:22 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Piggie
Apr 28, 02:10 PM
Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
Macky-Mac
Apr 24, 11:15 AM
..... If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
Don't panic
Mar 14, 08:37 PM
seem like things are degenerating at the reactor site. very worrying.
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.
mdntcallr
Sep 26, 02:28 PM
I don't know what apple would plan with this
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
sterno74
Oct 26, 02:04 PM
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores. So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.
They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores. So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.
Pilgrim1099
Apr 9, 09:42 PM
I 'm waiting for Apple to BUY Nintendo.
Will never, ever happen. Do some research. Nintendo is based off from Japan, not the USA originally.
And guess who's come back from the dead?
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/08/commodore-64-welcome-back-old-friend/?mod=google_news_blog
What goes around, comes around. Apple can stay on for so long and sooner or later, they're bound to fall. They're human and they can't keep it up forever.
EDIT: I meant this http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_TronVideo.aspx
Will never, ever happen. Do some research. Nintendo is based off from Japan, not the USA originally.
And guess who's come back from the dead?
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/08/commodore-64-welcome-back-old-friend/?mod=google_news_blog
What goes around, comes around. Apple can stay on for so long and sooner or later, they're bound to fall. They're human and they can't keep it up forever.
EDIT: I meant this http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_TronVideo.aspx
I'mAMac
Oct 29, 10:08 AM
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
fat phil
Apr 13, 08:36 AM
There's some very exciting stuff in there - I can't wait to get my hands on it.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
MacMiniOwner
Sep 12, 03:53 PM
I think the iTV is a fairly 'dumb' box that just drags media off you Mac on tou your TV...I've been doing this for years with a chipped xbox :)
Icaras
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
leekohler
Mar 28, 04:18 AM
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 09:28 PM
Well, I can see why there would be "a lot" of atheists here from a "statistical" relation.
1) Mac users are prolly richer on average.
Let's be honest, many ppl consider Macs a rip-off, really. :D But if you have money to blow, who cares!
Wealth goes up with educational attainment. Numerous studies show this.
Educational attainment causes theism to go down. Numerous studies show this too.
This applies for young (not yet "educated") ppl from "wealthy" families as well because parents who don't take theism seriously are less likely to pass it on to children.
2) PRSI forum users are into "knowledge" and current events.
The internet is one big information gateway in general.
Those who are enthusiastic enough to use it for the purpose of extracting knowledge, are likely more educated (refer #1) and/or know much more about the world. The more you know about the world and your environment and other cultures (aka educated), the less your exposure is restricted to your immediate community. Therefore, you are more open to other religious as well as the idea of "not picking a side".
1) Mac users are prolly richer on average.
Let's be honest, many ppl consider Macs a rip-off, really. :D But if you have money to blow, who cares!
Wealth goes up with educational attainment. Numerous studies show this.
Educational attainment causes theism to go down. Numerous studies show this too.
This applies for young (not yet "educated") ppl from "wealthy" families as well because parents who don't take theism seriously are less likely to pass it on to children.
2) PRSI forum users are into "knowledge" and current events.
The internet is one big information gateway in general.
Those who are enthusiastic enough to use it for the purpose of extracting knowledge, are likely more educated (refer #1) and/or know much more about the world. The more you know about the world and your environment and other cultures (aka educated), the less your exposure is restricted to your immediate community. Therefore, you are more open to other religious as well as the idea of "not picking a side".
awmazz
Mar 11, 07:51 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
Yvan256
Sep 20, 01:00 PM
I doubt that. The decoding will take place in iTV. How are you going to install codecs on it? If it does not support it out of the box, it probably will not be possible.
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 12:19 AM
From what I've been able to cobble together it looks like there is some very cool new stuff in FCP X. I can't wait for Apple to update its page and to actually kick the tires of the program. Hopefully it works as advertised (ex. FCP's current attempt at an 'open timeline' is nothing to write home about and the "auto correct" button in Apple Color is laughably bad) and I also hope all the helpful auto-features can be toggled on/off. For example, audio and video track assignments are a very common and very useful way to keep your timeline organized and easy to navigate around in (especially in a multi-user environment). White space is not a four letter word. ;)
There are times when software can try to be too helpful and it ends up just getting in the way so I hope Apple considered this and gives us the option to toggle a lot of these things on/off.
Lethal
There are times when software can try to be too helpful and it ends up just getting in the way so I hope Apple considered this and gives us the option to toggle a lot of these things on/off.
Lethal
dobbin
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:06 AM
Naah. That's not it. Try again.
Um... it is actually.
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
Um... it is actually.
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:13 PM
Right, lame jokes. Ok. Modern equivalent of female stand-up comics that used to joke about men leaving the toilet seat up.
Real sophisticated.
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Real sophisticated.
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:40 PM
Somewhere I think I read that Fukushima Dai-ichi was just a few months away from final retirement of the entire facility after twice its designed lifetime. But there almost certainly must be spent fuel rods in all the basins, since fuel changes are done at least as often as 18 months and spent fuel takes two to four years to cool enough to be safely moved offsite. The fuel still contains enough U-235 to produce considerable heat from just decay, but internal pollutants reduce its ability to contribute in a reactive core. Presumably, spent fuel is not considered to be able/likely to generate a critical event (neutron flux is too compromised by pollutants) so it would not require such sturdy containment as would a reactor.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.