Mord
Jul 13, 08:21 AM
the imac G5 has sufficient cooling to handle conroe, the macbook just has a heatplate connected to a heatpipe connected to small radiator, the imac has a full blow large copper heatsink over it similar to those used on 1U servers which can handle 100w xeons.
RebootD
Apr 12, 11:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
As a print designer who has slowly started moving into editing and animation it made sense for me to just pay more for the Master Collection and start using Premiere and AE.
That said I miss using FCP (I used it at a job a few years back) and at $299 I am happy to pick it up and combine it with AE.
As a print designer who has slowly started moving into editing and animation it made sense for me to just pay more for the Master Collection and start using Premiere and AE.
That said I miss using FCP (I used it at a job a few years back) and at $299 I am happy to pick it up and combine it with AE.
Full of Win
May 6, 08:15 PM
How much of this is from the GSM technology used? Can't CDMA pass through walls and other obsticals better than gsm ones? One would think this would make for less dropped calls.
Stella
Aug 29, 03:28 PM
And it may still happen. If the north atlantic Gulf Stream ceases, northern Europe will be in an effective ice age. Currently, its behaviour is changing...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
GGJstudios
Apr 9, 12:52 PM
If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:22 AM
I find it such a shame about the the low standards we as Americans have for our mobile providers. I see many people with the satisfaction of AT&T around the country, that they have no connection problems. Here is the problem. We are so accustomed to saying that signal strength is the be all and end all. The next question should be network speed. Case in point, I have family in Ottawa in Canada. He did a speedtest, during a weekday, and was getting 5.8 - 6.0 Mbps download speeds on Rogers and Fido networks. What do I get in NYC the fastest? On a good day 2.0 Mbps. The same morning he sent me his results from Ottawa I did a test and received 54 kbps. That's right...dial up speed. The fact is that we do not demand fast speeds as they have have in other places throughout the world, Europe, many parts of Asia and, yes, Canada. There is a reason for this: no competition. I can speak of Canada because of family there: there are multiple carriers there that will support the frequency the iPhone is on. Here, it is only AT&T. Many report using iPhone on T-Mobile with an unlocked phone, but, as I understand it, you can only used Edge on T-Mobile because of the different frequency. In other words, only 2G speeds.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Dagless
Mar 15, 09:58 AM
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
I've been observing this thread, and slightly educated from it too (thanks nuclear people!). But I had to jump in here - is this a joke? If it is you're taking it too far.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
I've been observing this thread, and slightly educated from it too (thanks nuclear people!). But I had to jump in here - is this a joke? If it is you're taking it too far.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:56 AM
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
I'm afraid you are.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
Sticman
Aug 28, 01:13 PM
it's not a sf bay area problem nearly as much as it is a san francisco problem..
Sorry ur SF AT&T service is lousy, but I disagree...AT&T is crappy in many parts of Santa Clara County (San Jose) as well.
And, I think its worse in NYC than in SF, based upon my personal experience.
Sorry ur SF AT&T service is lousy, but I disagree...AT&T is crappy in many parts of Santa Clara County (San Jose) as well.
And, I think its worse in NYC than in SF, based upon my personal experience.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:31 PM
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
C N Reilly
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
I'm not worried about this. There's only two possibilities:
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 08:00 PM
But any time a fad gets discussed over a period of years, it's no longer a fad, it's a trend.
Perfectly stated. :)
Perfectly stated. :)
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:33 AM
So be it but untill that thing can run a full version of let's say Autodesk Maya and install all the plug-ins in the world I want it will still only be a mobile toy. A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years. Pack me a dual quad with HT that can run for 100 days at 100% without breaking a sweat. That's a PC.
iCal'd.
iCal'd.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 03:41 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
philbeeney
Mar 11, 02:38 PM
Yet another one. 6.6 off the north west coast. Here's a link to the USGS website showing all the quake locations in northern Japan.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
skunk
Mar 12, 02:52 AM
Explosion reported at Fukushima plant.
An explosion has been heard from a Japanese nuclear power plant hit by Friday's devastating earthquake.
Reports said smoke was seen coming from the plant at Fukushima and several workers were injured.
Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.
A huge relief operation is under way after the 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami, which killed more than 600.
Hundreds more people are missing and it is feared about 1,300 may have died.
Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan declared a state of emergency at the Fukushima 1 and 2 power plants as engineers try to confirm whether a reactor at one of the stations has gone into meltdown.
Japan's NHK TV showed before and after pictures of the Fukushima plant. They appeared to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant had collapsed.
Cooling systems inside several reactors at the plants stopped working after Friday's earthquake cut the power supply.
Japan's nuclear agency said on Saturday that radioactive caesium and iodine had been detected near the number one reactor of the Fukushima 1 plant.
The agency said this may indicate that containers of uranium fuel inside the reactor may have begun melting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
An explosion has been heard from a Japanese nuclear power plant hit by Friday's devastating earthquake.
Reports said smoke was seen coming from the plant at Fukushima and several workers were injured.
Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.
A huge relief operation is under way after the 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami, which killed more than 600.
Hundreds more people are missing and it is feared about 1,300 may have died.
Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan declared a state of emergency at the Fukushima 1 and 2 power plants as engineers try to confirm whether a reactor at one of the stations has gone into meltdown.
Japan's NHK TV showed before and after pictures of the Fukushima plant. They appeared to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant had collapsed.
Cooling systems inside several reactors at the plants stopped working after Friday's earthquake cut the power supply.
Japan's nuclear agency said on Saturday that radioactive caesium and iodine had been detected near the number one reactor of the Fukushima 1 plant.
The agency said this may indicate that containers of uranium fuel inside the reactor may have begun melting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
d-fi
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
I think a lot of people are overlooking what "iTV" does.
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:36 PM
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
efficient yes, clean NO.
efficient yes, clean NO.
sisyphus
Sep 25, 11:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Santabean2000
May 2, 08:57 AM
Annoyingly this type of thing will become all too common. Damn Apple and their great products, making themselves popular and that.
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...