Bernard SG
Apr 28, 07:30 AM
Q2 figures will tell a different story, I would bet.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
nick9191
Apr 22, 11:44 PM
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
inkswamp
Oct 26, 03:49 AM
If history serves as a template for the future
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:18 PM
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
That's exactly the reason for the Walled Garden: superior User Experience. The "walled garden" is the reason Apple is so successful today. A controlled, tight, cohesive ecosystem based on a vertical business model - if done right - will *always* be superior to anything else out there. The proof is all laid out before you every day in the tech news feeds.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
Which is ironic considering Steve Jobs lamented the carriers walled garden. I love my iPhone, but I also understand that I traded AT&Ts walled garden for Apples.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
Which is ironic considering Steve Jobs lamented the carriers walled garden. I love my iPhone, but I also understand that I traded AT&Ts walled garden for Apples.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:11 AM
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
�algiris
May 2, 09:23 AM
So make it unsafe, it's not a rocket science, cowboy.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Educate yourself and find the difference between malware like this one and a virus.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Educate yourself and find the difference between malware like this one and a virus.
Hisdem
Mar 11, 08:36 PM
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
I'm not sure, but considering the amount of reactors that have been failing, I'd say not far enough.
so much radiation!!!:eek:
I'm not sure, but considering the amount of reactors that have been failing, I'd say not far enough.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:15 PM
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
I dont hate them i like what they are TRYING to do, they just aren't doing it.
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
I dont hate them i like what they are TRYING to do, they just aren't doing it.
Scooterman1
May 5, 01:08 PM
Dropped calls on AT&T are just a thing that you learn to tolerate. Even in our Houston area, where signals are strong on 2 iPhones, my wife and I drop calls each day in her 30 minute drive home. It seems to happen in the same areas so it may be when the calls get handed off to a different tower.
gauriemma
Sep 20, 01:48 PM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
skunk
Mar 14, 07:30 PM
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?I have been arguing that the ramifications of catastrophic failure of these plants, quite apart from any energy and pollution costs in building, keeping them running and decommissioning them, those ramifications alone serve to put nuclear power on a wholly different level. The equation has to be considered in its entirety. Taking the other costs into account makes it quite obvious that its just not worth it.
skunk
Mar 14, 04:12 PM
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them.The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 01:54 PM
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:55 PM
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:03 PM
ddtlm:
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
macfan1977
Mar 18, 09:05 PM
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
Multimedia
Jul 12, 06:46 PM
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.I'm thinking Paris may be the time for the new Merom MacBook Pro intro. :)
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.I'm thinking Paris may be the time for the new Merom MacBook Pro intro. :)
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:18 AM
The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.Excuse me?!?!
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
Piggie
Apr 28, 10:53 AM
My child's school is part of the USA "laptop schools" program and every child from 5th grade through graduation is required to have a laptop. The only three they are allowed to choose from (currently) are PCs and cost $1099, $1649, and $2029.
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
Actually, I'm note sure about the US, But I would fully agree with stopping Schools etc from buying Mac's for use in education.
The point of a school is to teach/educate/prepare children/students for the skills they are going to need when they leave and enter into the real world, the marketplace for jobs.
Like it or not, PC's are vastly more in use in typical businesses these days.
You do now want a vast amount of people leaving school to start their new jobs, being confronted by PC's and say, oh, we're never used PC's we only used Macs at college.
That's just a non starter of an idea. And getting businesses to dump all their PC's and buy Mac's overnight is just not going to happen. Like it or not.
I also take issue with those who seem to think Anything non Apple is worthless junk, that's just silly talk that belongs in the playground.
I also believe Apple could make a low cost (lost cost for Apple) Plastic cased laptop, perhaps trim the specs down a little and make is much more affordable to a typical family. I don't know why people cannot grasp that many here are not the typical consumer who is struggling to pay bills, feed the family, run the car etc etc.
It's very insulting to brand such a person, who is working hard to bring up a family "Joe Cheapo"
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
Actually, I'm note sure about the US, But I would fully agree with stopping Schools etc from buying Mac's for use in education.
The point of a school is to teach/educate/prepare children/students for the skills they are going to need when they leave and enter into the real world, the marketplace for jobs.
Like it or not, PC's are vastly more in use in typical businesses these days.
You do now want a vast amount of people leaving school to start their new jobs, being confronted by PC's and say, oh, we're never used PC's we only used Macs at college.
That's just a non starter of an idea. And getting businesses to dump all their PC's and buy Mac's overnight is just not going to happen. Like it or not.
I also take issue with those who seem to think Anything non Apple is worthless junk, that's just silly talk that belongs in the playground.
I also believe Apple could make a low cost (lost cost for Apple) Plastic cased laptop, perhaps trim the specs down a little and make is much more affordable to a typical family. I don't know why people cannot grasp that many here are not the typical consumer who is struggling to pay bills, feed the family, run the car etc etc.
It's very insulting to brand such a person, who is working hard to bring up a family "Joe Cheapo"
skunk
Apr 24, 11:04 AM
Do you think they make him change in the closet? :)I shouldn't think Lee remembers what a closet is, it's been so long since he was in one.
chrono1081
May 2, 11:52 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
MattInOz
Apr 21, 09:57 AM
So you can't watch the Wizard of OZ and listen to Dark Side of the Moon at the same time? Get a real phone. :D
No but I can listen to Radiohead and read the wizard of id. :cool:
No but I can listen to Radiohead and read the wizard of id. :cool:
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий