toddybody
Apr 15, 10:24 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
Sydde
Mar 12, 01:02 PM
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time?
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
Do you understand what high ambient radiation does to the crystal structure of construction materials? 40 years is a very very long time in the operational lifespan of any nuclear power plant. Unless they have completely replaced the core hardware itself at least once, as well as the heat management system (which is entirely possible) the reactor could very well be in a seriously weakened state from the intense exposure. Every functional part of a plant is exposed to elevated radiation levels, spreading the material degradation throughout the system.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment...
Not really. The enormous amount of energy that goes into fuel acquisition and refinement makes it nearly a wash when compared with other forms of electric energy production. When you add in the disposal of waste, both spent fuel and low level radioactive construction materials, the equation starts to creep into the red. Of course, you might be able to prove me wrong, if you could find me an example of an operational nuclear power plant built and run entirely, or even largely, with private funding.
geofftay
Mar 18, 08:26 PM
Don't care how many times this has been regurgitated...
I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.
I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.
takao
Mar 13, 05:18 PM
To quote one of your articles:
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
bruinsrme
Apr 19, 09:27 PM
There is a few things
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
remove programs
My network places
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
Still learning OSx.
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
remove programs
My network places
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
Still learning OSx.
rxse7en
Oct 12, 07:12 AM
Thanks for the update. Still as cheap as the refurbs. I think that's cheap enough for me.
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
You're welcome.
You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.
B
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
You're welcome.
You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.
B
handsome pete
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Your quick denigration of Adobe shows how much you don't know about the industry. And as a whole, Final Cut still plays second fiddle to Avid.
As a Final Cut editor the prospects of this new version are very promising, but I'm still withholding judgment until some more info comes out and I can get my hands on it.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Your quick denigration of Adobe shows how much you don't know about the industry. And as a whole, Final Cut still plays second fiddle to Avid.
As a Final Cut editor the prospects of this new version are very promising, but I'm still withholding judgment until some more info comes out and I can get my hands on it.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 01:44 PM
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 sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
Huntn
Apr 26, 10:49 AM
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
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.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
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.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
TheT
Oct 7, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by gopher
As I've always said, it is in the software!
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
As I've always said, it is in the software!
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
makinao
Mar 11, 02:48 AM
Satoneko and everyone else in Japan: Please take precautions for aftershocks. In my country, the worst earthquake disaster when two separate 7.0 earthquakes hit the same area within minutes of each other, and aftershocks continued for several days. The worst may not be over. We're hoping for everyone's safety.
*Just read another 6.4 quake just happened.
*Just read another 6.4 quake just happened.
tigress666
Apr 10, 01:00 PM
If you are going to buy something to mainly play games on when you are out of the house which one are you going to buy.
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
citizenzen
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean ... ?
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
I got far more enjoyment out of Infinity Blade for 6 dollars than I did out of Pilot Wings Resort 3DS for 40 dollars...just sayin.
bommai
Sep 20, 10:56 AM
Mac Mini vs iTV as a pure home theatre component
Mac Mini advantages:
1) DVD drive to play movies
2) ATSC/NTSC tuner capability through eyeTV Hybrid - DVR solution. Can pause live TV, schedule recording using remote in living room
3) Onboard storage / External HD support through USB/Firewire
4) Front Row alternatives such as Media Central - Google video, You Tube, IPTV support
5) Leopard update should bring Front Row feature parity with iTV (guess!). Front Row already supports Bonjour - so you can still have a media server from which you stream data from
6) Enough horsepower to play 1080P H.264 as well as MPEG2 TS.
7) Could hookup an iSight for video chat in the living room. Could enhance frontrow so it pauses media if somebody is calling with iChat.
Mac Mini Disadvantages
1) No component video output. I have a HDTV (5 year old) that has only component video input. No HDMI/DVI.
2) DVI output may not support HDCP and might prevent future HDTV files from not displaying properly in 1080P (guess!)
3) Might run into trouble connecting DVI output to DVI/HDMI input on TV in certain cases. Not all TV models work properly with respect to scan rate, etc.
4) Is still a computer and might need keyboard and mouse to make it work for things like software update, etc. Can you VNC or ARD from another compute.r
5) Price - more expensive than iTV. But the extra features could justify it.
iTV advantages
1) Meant for a home theatre/living room. No need for keyboard/mouse
2) Component/HDMI guarantees modern TV connectivity.
3) Price. Most people already have a DVD player, so why duplicate that?
4) Stability. Stripped down functionality means less clunky feel.
iTV disadvantages
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
2) Not clear if you can buy media through iTV.
3) Other front row like programs such as Media Central won't be supported.
iTV suggestions.
I think Apple should make a home theatre edition of Mac Mini. Let it look just like the Mac Mini but make it have all the advantages of the iTV as well as the Mac Mini. Sell it for the same price as Mac Mini. The traditional Mac Mini can be used as a general purpose computer while the Mac Mini Home Theatre edition can have the following:
1) HDMI/Component output
2) Support for eyeTV Hybrid inside Front Row. Recorded shows can have a mini store - Apple can try to sell you TV episodes that you missed or episodes just like it.
3) Front Row equivalent to iTV
4) Stripped Down OS X - cannot use as general purpose computer
5) Enough HD space for internal eyeTV storage - expandable with external USB HD. Firewire could be left out if it saves money
6) iSight support built into Frontrow.
7) Bonjour support just like today.
8) YouTube, Google video and the likes.
A good media center on the PC side costs $1500 and up (a generic tower PC does not make a media centre). $600 is not bad for the Mac Mini Media Centre edition even though you might have to spend more money adding HD, eyeTV hybrid, etc.
Mac Mini advantages:
1) DVD drive to play movies
2) ATSC/NTSC tuner capability through eyeTV Hybrid - DVR solution. Can pause live TV, schedule recording using remote in living room
3) Onboard storage / External HD support through USB/Firewire
4) Front Row alternatives such as Media Central - Google video, You Tube, IPTV support
5) Leopard update should bring Front Row feature parity with iTV (guess!). Front Row already supports Bonjour - so you can still have a media server from which you stream data from
6) Enough horsepower to play 1080P H.264 as well as MPEG2 TS.
7) Could hookup an iSight for video chat in the living room. Could enhance frontrow so it pauses media if somebody is calling with iChat.
Mac Mini Disadvantages
1) No component video output. I have a HDTV (5 year old) that has only component video input. No HDMI/DVI.
2) DVI output may not support HDCP and might prevent future HDTV files from not displaying properly in 1080P (guess!)
3) Might run into trouble connecting DVI output to DVI/HDMI input on TV in certain cases. Not all TV models work properly with respect to scan rate, etc.
4) Is still a computer and might need keyboard and mouse to make it work for things like software update, etc. Can you VNC or ARD from another compute.r
5) Price - more expensive than iTV. But the extra features could justify it.
iTV advantages
1) Meant for a home theatre/living room. No need for keyboard/mouse
2) Component/HDMI guarantees modern TV connectivity.
3) Price. Most people already have a DVD player, so why duplicate that?
4) Stability. Stripped down functionality means less clunky feel.
iTV disadvantages
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
2) Not clear if you can buy media through iTV.
3) Other front row like programs such as Media Central won't be supported.
iTV suggestions.
I think Apple should make a home theatre edition of Mac Mini. Let it look just like the Mac Mini but make it have all the advantages of the iTV as well as the Mac Mini. Sell it for the same price as Mac Mini. The traditional Mac Mini can be used as a general purpose computer while the Mac Mini Home Theatre edition can have the following:
1) HDMI/Component output
2) Support for eyeTV Hybrid inside Front Row. Recorded shows can have a mini store - Apple can try to sell you TV episodes that you missed or episodes just like it.
3) Front Row equivalent to iTV
4) Stripped Down OS X - cannot use as general purpose computer
5) Enough HD space for internal eyeTV storage - expandable with external USB HD. Firewire could be left out if it saves money
6) iSight support built into Frontrow.
7) Bonjour support just like today.
8) YouTube, Google video and the likes.
A good media center on the PC side costs $1500 and up (a generic tower PC does not make a media centre). $600 is not bad for the Mac Mini Media Centre edition even though you might have to spend more money adding HD, eyeTV hybrid, etc.
Silentwave
Jul 12, 12:19 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
Have fun!
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
Have fun!
Liquorpuki
Mar 15, 11:38 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??
If you want to get technical, the lack of cooling water was caused by the inability to activate the backup generators. The switchgear for the backup generators was flooded by the tsunami. I could come up with a ton of engineering design decisions that could've prevented this and none of them have to do with the reactor or nuclear technology
- Not putting critical switchgear in a basement that could get flooded
- Pre-installing pumps in the basement to remove the water in the case of a flood
- Having a redundant set of switchgear/BU generators with an additional switchover scheme in the event the primary switchgear malfunctions
- Having an additional distribution panel or tap point so I could use portable generators to power the cooling system
- Building a taller tsunami barrier
- Putting all critical components in a secure building, not just the reactor.
Even though the radiation leak is devastating because, well it's radiation, it's the electrical and structural engineers who failed here, not the nuclear engineers. Personally I think there needs be a design standards revision when it comes to nuclear stations, which is what I'm hoping other countries are referring to when they say they're watching and taking notes.
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??
If you want to get technical, the lack of cooling water was caused by the inability to activate the backup generators. The switchgear for the backup generators was flooded by the tsunami. I could come up with a ton of engineering design decisions that could've prevented this and none of them have to do with the reactor or nuclear technology
- Not putting critical switchgear in a basement that could get flooded
- Pre-installing pumps in the basement to remove the water in the case of a flood
- Having a redundant set of switchgear/BU generators with an additional switchover scheme in the event the primary switchgear malfunctions
- Having an additional distribution panel or tap point so I could use portable generators to power the cooling system
- Building a taller tsunami barrier
- Putting all critical components in a secure building, not just the reactor.
Even though the radiation leak is devastating because, well it's radiation, it's the electrical and structural engineers who failed here, not the nuclear engineers. Personally I think there needs be a design standards revision when it comes to nuclear stations, which is what I'm hoping other countries are referring to when they say they're watching and taking notes.
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:31 PM
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:44 AM
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments. Desktops and Laptops will continue to hold top market share, while inevitably tablets will cut into that margin and find a nice place and sit. Desktops have been around since the beginning.. and every challenger to it has never surpassed the market share. Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, smartphones... whatever.. people still need desktops and laptops for prolonged productivity.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
thatsallfolks
Apr 5, 09:40 PM
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 13, 01:29 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
MacinDoc
Oct 26, 12:22 AM
Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.
IBradMac
May 5, 08:38 PM
AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls
Four years now. wow.
Four years now. wow.
mitchec
Sep 23, 02:14 AM
I've noticed a lot of people going on about the iTV being 802.11n compatible. What I want to know is how is this going to be incorporated into wireless networks that are currently supporting 802.11 a,b & g. If it is going to be 802.11n then we are all going to need new routers to accommodate the higher transfer rate, and what about all those individuals possessing an imac / mac mini with built in wireless with no way to upgrade to the new standard without getting new machines or additional hardware. its going to be an expensive upgrade on top of the $299 price for an iTV
No comments:
Post a Comment