deannnnn
Oct 7, 10:11 PM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:58 PM
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:29 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
emotion
Sep 20, 02:38 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
It's not a cut down mini. Think of it more like a wireless iPod for your TV.
The iPod is a device for getting music etc in your iTunes lib into your ears. The iTV is a device for getting video content wirelessly from your iTunes lib to your TV. (The model is that you stock your iTunes lib with your existing CDs, likelwise you replace your DVD player by stocking your iTunes lib with films from your DVD collection. From then on buying both audio and films from iTunes store).
I suspect the hard drive is just for caching.
I'm guessing the problem Apple face here is that people want PVR functionality but that digital tuner standards are different all over the world (aren't they? EDIT: From wikipedia, "The technology used is ATSC in North America, ISDB-T in Japan, and DVB-T in Europe and Australia; the rest of the world remaining mostly undecided. ISDB-T is very similar to DVB-T and can share front-end receiver and demodulator components." Seems the US has chosen a different system to the rest of the world.).
You can readily get PVRs in the UK with a 80G hard drive and two digital (freeview) tuners from 120 quid.
It's not a cut down mini. Think of it more like a wireless iPod for your TV.
The iPod is a device for getting music etc in your iTunes lib into your ears. The iTV is a device for getting video content wirelessly from your iTunes lib to your TV. (The model is that you stock your iTunes lib with your existing CDs, likelwise you replace your DVD player by stocking your iTunes lib with films from your DVD collection. From then on buying both audio and films from iTunes store).
I suspect the hard drive is just for caching.
I'm guessing the problem Apple face here is that people want PVR functionality but that digital tuner standards are different all over the world (aren't they? EDIT: From wikipedia, "The technology used is ATSC in North America, ISDB-T in Japan, and DVB-T in Europe and Australia; the rest of the world remaining mostly undecided. ISDB-T is very similar to DVB-T and can share front-end receiver and demodulator components." Seems the US has chosen a different system to the rest of the world.).
You can readily get PVRs in the UK with a 80G hard drive and two digital (freeview) tuners from 120 quid.
Tulse
Mar 20, 08:54 PM
it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD)As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.
saving107
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
Later on in life, most of them will probably have a beer with you and apologize.
If you want to really take on bullying, you need a totally different kind of campaign.
I got the impression that this campaign was not for Bully Awareness, but to let those who are getting bullied know that "It gets Better" and to guide you to the right place if you need someone to talk to before things get worse.
If you want to really take on bullying, you need a totally different kind of campaign.
I got the impression that this campaign was not for Bully Awareness, but to let those who are getting bullied know that "It gets Better" and to guide you to the right place if you need someone to talk to before things get worse.
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
BC2009
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
Sexual orientation is just another excuse for bullying. Its been going on for centuries even before it was about sexual orientation (e.g.: social standing, wealth, ethnicity, religion, body weight, athletic ability, intellectual ability -- pick one).
It has always been wrong and it needs to be prevented, but I don't see it changing any time soon. If it ever becomes "main stream" for teenagers to be homosexual or bisexual, then bullies will just choose something else to differentiate on and then bully people based on that. It's sad.
The best defense is parents, teachers, and school counselors building up the self esteem of children so as to prevent others from tearing it down. The truth of the matter for these kids is that it does "get better". The best quote in their was that bullies are at the "height of their power" at age 15 or 16 -- it's true. Usually, bullies do what they do because they are insecure about some deficiency they perceive in themselves and so they try to feel powerful by tearing others down. That insecurity translates into a higher likelihood for failures later in life and unfortunately the easiest people to bully when they are older is their own spouse and children.
It has always been wrong and it needs to be prevented, but I don't see it changing any time soon. If it ever becomes "main stream" for teenagers to be homosexual or bisexual, then bullies will just choose something else to differentiate on and then bully people based on that. It's sad.
The best defense is parents, teachers, and school counselors building up the self esteem of children so as to prevent others from tearing it down. The truth of the matter for these kids is that it does "get better". The best quote in their was that bullies are at the "height of their power" at age 15 or 16 -- it's true. Usually, bullies do what they do because they are insecure about some deficiency they perceive in themselves and so they try to feel powerful by tearing others down. That insecurity translates into a higher likelihood for failures later in life and unfortunately the easiest people to bully when they are older is their own spouse and children.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 01:06 PM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
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).
bankshot
Sep 28, 01:43 PM
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
Sure, because script writing, voice acting, scene generation, and character animation only take an hour or two per movie... :rolleyes: ;)
Sure, because script writing, voice acting, scene generation, and character animation only take an hour or two per movie... :rolleyes: ;)
alexf
Aug 29, 12:17 PM
I could not care any less.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:46 AM
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
Popeye206
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Mal
Apr 5, 08:05 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
gravytrain84
Mar 18, 01:31 AM
I knew this was coming sooner or later....:mad:
shaun319
Apr 14, 05:46 AM
screen maximizing is an annoyance on mac
soLoredd
Mar 18, 06:07 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
Apple OC
Mar 12, 02:48 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8008582
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
macridah
Oct 25, 10:33 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
iphonedev11
Feb 15, 03:05 PM
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.
wordoflife
Mar 18, 11:53 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I know its in the contract, but thats cheap.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I know its in the contract, but thats cheap.