thogs_cave
Jul 12, 11:53 AM
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
redkamel
Apr 13, 12:54 AM
just want to throw something out there on the color correction argument...(I dont do video work, but photo)
Implementing color correction into FCP shouldn't have any bearing on a more advanced tool like Color. Aperture has a lot of "advanced tools" that work fine for many projects...but to get nitty gritty I need plug ins and photoshop.
I would imagine Apple is adding color correction so people who just need basic color editing don't need to go buy something big and complicated like Color. I can edit out dust spots, trash and "could" make black and white shots on Aperture..which is fine for parties, landscapes and such.. But for portraits, wedding shots, stuff I care about I use plugins, and if I need layer masks and such its off to photoshop land!
I don't see what the hubub about color correction is.
I'd be more interested to hear about FCP in broadcast vs film though. Sounds interesting!
Implementing color correction into FCP shouldn't have any bearing on a more advanced tool like Color. Aperture has a lot of "advanced tools" that work fine for many projects...but to get nitty gritty I need plug ins and photoshop.
I would imagine Apple is adding color correction so people who just need basic color editing don't need to go buy something big and complicated like Color. I can edit out dust spots, trash and "could" make black and white shots on Aperture..which is fine for parties, landscapes and such.. But for portraits, wedding shots, stuff I care about I use plugins, and if I need layer masks and such its off to photoshop land!
I don't see what the hubub about color correction is.
I'd be more interested to hear about FCP in broadcast vs film though. Sounds interesting!
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
pkson
Apr 13, 12:05 AM
Anytime FCP is brought up there's a *body part* measuring *stuff*storm about who's "professional" and who's not.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 10:37 PM
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ????????
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
CountBoni
Mar 18, 05:16 AM
Hey mates! I live in the UK and according to what I've read, what american mobile companies are charging you is a rip-off! I pay �35 per month (tax included, about $55 USD) and I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices, (macbook and iPad in my case and even my mates iPod touch from time to time when we are out). No extra fees, no hidden tricks. And my iPhone is unlocked, so I can sell it when my contract finishes and any person can use in any country or any network. COMPLAIN PEOPLE!:apple:
charliehustle
Oct 15, 07:10 PM
Some conventions are worth adopting, if only for the reasons they are created. For instance, when writing in the English language, the convention is to begin at the left, with each sentence starting with an upper case letter.
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
iRockMan1
Apr 9, 03:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
dgree03
Apr 28, 02:38 PM
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Flash on my Air runs wonderfully... :rolleyes:
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Flash on my Air runs wonderfully... :rolleyes:
Jamieserg
Apr 13, 12:35 PM
I like the new Final Cut Interface the old one was getting tired. Plus rendering in the background will save me SO much time. A lot of my time is spent hitting cmd+r at the moment. Looks like a brilliant release but as always i'll save my final judgement for when I get my hands on it.
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:02 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
firestarter
Apr 23, 07:39 PM
I thought I answered this fairly well on the previous page.
*shrug*
OK, let's see.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
*shrug*
OK, let's see.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
iliketyla
Apr 20, 06:37 PM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:34 PM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
Peace
Sep 12, 05:54 PM
To help quell confusion this device WILL be 802.11n
There will be no problem streaming DVD quality or even 720P
There will be no problem streaming DVD quality or even 720P
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:12 PM
Agreed - no one blames the Church for the existence of pedophiles. They blame the Church for a massive, systemic coverup lasting decades during which known child abusers were allowed to abuse thousands and thousands of Children who had been placed in the care of that same Church.
I don't want them to burn in hell - they need only confess their sins and ask for forgiveness anyway. I want them to rot in jail.
Agreed, but use the proper terminology. It wasn't "abuse"; it was "rape". Child rape. The Catholic church shielded hundreds of priests from facing criminal prosecution for raping children, and then sent them on their way so they could rape more children.
This cannot be repeated too many times.
I don't want them to burn in hell - they need only confess their sins and ask for forgiveness anyway. I want them to rot in jail.
Agreed, but use the proper terminology. It wasn't "abuse"; it was "rape". Child rape. The Catholic church shielded hundreds of priests from facing criminal prosecution for raping children, and then sent them on their way so they could rape more children.
This cannot be repeated too many times.
Glideslope
Apr 9, 01:37 PM
Huge!
I Finished DS9.
The best Space Wallpaper
Rocketman
Sep 12, 04:33 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subsribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Here is something I saw today for the first time. Cable TV to your IP address.
http://www.mobitv.com/
Low priced too for what it does.
Rocketman
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Here is something I saw today for the first time. Cable TV to your IP address.
http://www.mobitv.com/
Low priced too for what it does.
Rocketman
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 02:06 PM
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
takao
Mar 14, 09:24 PM
well looks like reactor 4 now has a fire problem which started from falling debris after nr3 exploded ...
but it's only an ordinary fire .. as ridiculous that sounds when talking about a nuclear plant
but it's only an ordinary fire .. as ridiculous that sounds when talking about a nuclear plant
archipellago
May 2, 04:07 PM
by default and design, Windows has been more secure than OSX for years now...Google it...!
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
darkwing
Aug 29, 12:44 PM
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
c.hilding
Oct 26, 08:55 PM
Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:34 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
There is a chance you are eligible for a new government sponsored solar program.
ReplyDeleteDetermine if you are eligble now!