~Shard~
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The iTV sounds great, however if I buy one I�m going to want to be able to utilize it to its fullest extent. And right now, living outside of the US, without access to TV shows on iTunes, let alone the new movies, it just doesn�t make sense for me to buy one. Hopefully things will change next year by the time it is released, but I have my doubts. As a result, there are going to have to be some other amazing features incorporated into this box to convince me to buy it, otherwise I�m not shelling out good money for a STB which Apple has essentially crippled for me. :cool:
leshkanyc
Nov 10, 03:01 PM
Yes, i did! And it's a BIG difference vs ****** AT&T
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 09:00 PM
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 06:19 PM
We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
calvin66
Aug 29, 01:31 PM
While I'm sure Apple and everyone else has a long way to go with regard to clean manufacturing practices, I'm not sold on Greenpeace's approach to the ratings.
If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.
It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.
If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.
It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.
The Beatles
Apr 9, 11:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:08 AM
I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 25, 03:49 PM
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:27 AM
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
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.
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.
Marx55
Oct 26, 03:09 AM
ONE THING IS CLEAR:
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Piggie
Apr 28, 02:10 PM
Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 03:25 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
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. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
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. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
kdarling
May 8, 04:56 PM
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service.
I think that ATT and Verizon are basically the same price nowadays.
If Sprint could roam with EVDO data on Verizon, I'd jump to them in a heartbeat. Hot phones, low price.
I think that ATT and Verizon are basically the same price nowadays.
If Sprint could roam with EVDO data on Verizon, I'd jump to them in a heartbeat. Hot phones, low price.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:05 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:10 AM
These gay kids need examples of hope and success.
Um, they're everywhere. Statistics show gays have higher incomes. Gays are 3% of the population, yet you can't name a single new show on TV in the past few years that doesn't have at least one gay character.
They're doing fine, and I find it hard to believe kids aren't already seeing examples of that on the internet.
Um, they're everywhere. Statistics show gays have higher incomes. Gays are 3% of the population, yet you can't name a single new show on TV in the past few years that doesn't have at least one gay character.
They're doing fine, and I find it hard to believe kids aren't already seeing examples of that on the internet.
AppliedVisual
Oct 21, 02:06 PM
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
Crucial makes great stuff (usually). The trick is to not buy direct from Crucial!!! But vendors like newegg and zipzoomfly sell Crucial memory at prices close to all the other "cheap" memory like OCZ, Corsair, Patriot, Kingston -- or all the other makers that make some pretty darn good stuff (usually). Right now, FB-DIMMs are pretty scarce... Most vendors for Mac Pro RAM are shipping the same Samsung modules that Apple is, they are just using different OEM heat spreaders. The price just keeps falling as the Mac Pro and other PC systems use more of this stuff and demand increases. I definitely see an 8-core Mac Pro w/8GB (4x2GB) in my near future. :) I think I'm going to sell one of my G5 Quads though, the resale value on these is really holding strong -- they're going on eBay for just about what I paid for them! May jump on it now or as soon as the 8-core Pro is released because I fear that as soon as Adobe CS3 hits along with a few other universal binary updates people are waiting on, the value of these G5 Quads is going to go in the crapper.
Crucial makes great stuff (usually). The trick is to not buy direct from Crucial!!! But vendors like newegg and zipzoomfly sell Crucial memory at prices close to all the other "cheap" memory like OCZ, Corsair, Patriot, Kingston -- or all the other makers that make some pretty darn good stuff (usually). Right now, FB-DIMMs are pretty scarce... Most vendors for Mac Pro RAM are shipping the same Samsung modules that Apple is, they are just using different OEM heat spreaders. The price just keeps falling as the Mac Pro and other PC systems use more of this stuff and demand increases. I definitely see an 8-core Mac Pro w/8GB (4x2GB) in my near future. :) I think I'm going to sell one of my G5 Quads though, the resale value on these is really holding strong -- they're going on eBay for just about what I paid for them! May jump on it now or as soon as the 8-core Pro is released because I fear that as soon as Adobe CS3 hits along with a few other universal binary updates people are waiting on, the value of these G5 Quads is going to go in the crapper.
skunk
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:56 AM
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:20 PM
I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
MacsAttack
Sep 29, 05:15 AM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
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? :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment