Howdr
Mar 18, 08:26 AM
I'm happy to see some of the responsible replies here. I also say bravo to AT&T. It seems like whenever a thread like this comes up, it brings out the MacRumors den of thieves who like to circumvent data plans and steal data that the rest of us our paying for.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
megfilmworks
Oct 8, 11:02 AM
When pigs fly.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:35 PM
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming?
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
faroZ06
Apr 20, 06:16 PM
This is becoming more true, but historically hasn't been the case. Fortunately Microsoft eventually learned its lessons from Slammer and the like.
Once you use Windows, you are doing something stupid :D
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
Once you use Windows, you are doing something stupid :D
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
Snowy_River
Mar 19, 01:30 AM
...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
skunk
Mar 24, 07:14 PM
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said. Great description of their own behaviour, justified by a 2,500-year-old book of revisionist history. Anyway, what exactly was the relationship between David and Jonathan?
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said. Great description of their own behaviour, justified by a 2,500-year-old book of revisionist history. Anyway, what exactly was the relationship between David and Jonathan?
fat phil
Apr 13, 08:45 AM
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
That's a pretty common thread of thinking in the creative business. I mean, test tubes are pretty cheap but you don't get every tom dick and harry claiming to be biologists, right? :)
Professionals don't have to worry, unless there's a hoard of untapped creative genius lurked out there.
A poor editor will have a poor showreel. That'll never change. All that changes is the number of canned effects we have to look for to realise that they didn't do the clever stuff on their own... Damn those "do something clever" buttons!
That's a pretty common thread of thinking in the creative business. I mean, test tubes are pretty cheap but you don't get every tom dick and harry claiming to be biologists, right? :)
Professionals don't have to worry, unless there's a hoard of untapped creative genius lurked out there.
A poor editor will have a poor showreel. That'll never change. All that changes is the number of canned effects we have to look for to realise that they didn't do the clever stuff on their own... Damn those "do something clever" buttons!
fxtech
Apr 28, 08:16 AM
Next year you will see iPhones and iPods counted too. I mean you need to do all you can to make it look good to shareholders.
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:47 PM
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:12 AM
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
puma1552
Mar 15, 04:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 8, 10:15 PM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
Warbrain
Oct 8, 07:52 AM
Not sure if this is linked yet but it's a good read:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/08/gartner-declares-android-a-second-place-winner-in-2012-why/
I personally don't see Android coming anywhere near Apple or RIM because their focus is so splintered and erratic. You're going to end up with the same issue as before - different interfaces on different devices. The only upside will be the uniform system.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/08/gartner-declares-android-a-second-place-winner-in-2012-why/
I personally don't see Android coming anywhere near Apple or RIM because their focus is so splintered and erratic. You're going to end up with the same issue as before - different interfaces on different devices. The only upside will be the uniform system.
toddicus
Nov 3, 06:08 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
dr_lha
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
Nice, but I'd need to buy a new TV to use it. My TV doesn't support either Component or HDMI. Would a S-Video output be too much to ask for? I guess maybe they could have a dongle that converts HDMI->S-Video, like I use on my Mac mini right now (DVI -> S-Video).
blastvurt
Apr 28, 09:09 AM
So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
I agree, the ipod was a very sucessful line of MP3 players and made more buy PMP than would have previously (if we class walkmans and portable CD players as PMP's)
The ipods rise and decline can be explained by something called the product lifecyle. Most products go through it. Here is a nice diagram to show the lifecycle.
Ipad is currently in the growth stage, Ipod on the other hand is in decline
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
I agree, the ipod was a very sucessful line of MP3 players and made more buy PMP than would have previously (if we class walkmans and portable CD players as PMP's)
The ipods rise and decline can be explained by something called the product lifecyle. Most products go through it. Here is a nice diagram to show the lifecycle.
Ipad is currently in the growth stage, Ipod on the other hand is in decline
portishead
Apr 12, 10:50 PM
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 04:17 AM
The delusion is this thread is hilarious. I'm seeing little casual gamers saying that Nintendo should be bought out, that Sony and Microsoft are doomed because their consoles are cheap on eBay because of device malfunctions (like Apple computers / handhelds don't?), and people claiming that touchscreens are going to replace the buttons for controllers sooner or later.
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.
dgbowers
Apr 5, 10:59 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
As far as the whole delete thing, just do CMD+Delete, and BAM! it goes straight in the trashcan. Also, CMD+SHIFT+Delete empties the trashcan.
Also the columns view in finder is the only view i ever use, it shows you all of the levels of the directory structure.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
As far as the whole delete thing, just do CMD+Delete, and BAM! it goes straight in the trashcan. Also, CMD+SHIFT+Delete empties the trashcan.
Also the columns view in finder is the only view i ever use, it shows you all of the levels of the directory structure.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:06 AM
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider: