puma1552
Mar 12, 06:03 AM
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
The problem for the west with a situation like this (or conversely the east when something happens in the west), is that the news in the other hemisphere is bound to be delayed, and at the mercy of translation; it goes with the territory.
I don't want to start a pissing match with anyone, because I think all of us want the same thing, and fear the same thing.
All I'm advocating is waiting on reliable information as things develop, and not to jump to any wild conclusions. If anyone's got vested interest in worrying, it's us here in Japan.
The problem for the west with a situation like this (or conversely the east when something happens in the west), is that the news in the other hemisphere is bound to be delayed, and at the mercy of translation; it goes with the territory.
I don't want to start a pissing match with anyone, because I think all of us want the same thing, and fear the same thing.
All I'm advocating is waiting on reliable information as things develop, and not to jump to any wild conclusions. If anyone's got vested interest in worrying, it's us here in Japan.
gnasher729
Oct 31, 08:15 PM
Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.
awmazz
Mar 11, 08:57 AM
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 03:42 PM
They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores.2.66GHz is not slower.So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.I am astounded by those who drop in here not understanding this technology at all. Read the thread then get back to us. Do you even understand the term Multi-Threaded Workload?
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.I am astounded by those who drop in here not understanding this technology at all. Read the thread then get back to us. Do you even understand the term Multi-Threaded Workload?
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:23 PM
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:10 PM
Backtothemac:
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
rxse7en
Oct 20, 01:30 PM
My 24" came in earlier this week. Using it as my main monitor and the MBP screen is my tools monitor now. Very happy overall and the SD and CF ports are a bonus.
B
B
bartelby
Mar 12, 03:47 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
:eek:
That's insane!
:eek:
That's insane!
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:08 AM
Umm… sweetheart… I am a 47yo gay man (married).
I think most of your problems lie within. Self-hate is not the way forward.
Hahaha, if I doubted your gayness for one second, you really convinced me with that last part..."self-hate". (very standard, piss-poor rebuttal I get from every butt-hurt gay (no pun intended!) that feels MY views don't align with theirs)
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda, that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT. This path is not easy for anyone and you, a man approaching 50, who's been around during much tougher times, ought to know how difficult it is. Don't try to fool yourself.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have an entirely different point of view.
I think most of your problems lie within. Self-hate is not the way forward.
Hahaha, if I doubted your gayness for one second, you really convinced me with that last part..."self-hate". (very standard, piss-poor rebuttal I get from every butt-hurt gay (no pun intended!) that feels MY views don't align with theirs)
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda, that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT. This path is not easy for anyone and you, a man approaching 50, who's been around during much tougher times, ought to know how difficult it is. Don't try to fool yourself.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have an entirely different point of view.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
peharri
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
This is good news. When they announced it, I was pretty convinced they weren't talking about a box that required an additional computer, although USB storage or a dedicated server box seemed likely based upon the absense of evidence for an in-built hard disk.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
therevolution
Mar 18, 05:02 PM
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
Um, wrong. Did you read the story?
Currently, when you buy a song from iTunes, it sends the song to you with no DRM. Your copy of iTunes then adds the DRM using your personal key. So, if you make a copy of the song before iTunes adds the DRM, you've got a DRM-free music file. That's it.
I say go DVD Jon. DRM like this is doomed to fail. If you can hear it, you can copy it. Simple as that. Maybe one day the RIAA will figure that out... probably not, though.
Um, wrong. Did you read the story?
Currently, when you buy a song from iTunes, it sends the song to you with no DRM. Your copy of iTunes then adds the DRM using your personal key. So, if you make a copy of the song before iTunes adds the DRM, you've got a DRM-free music file. That's it.
I say go DVD Jon. DRM like this is doomed to fail. If you can hear it, you can copy it. Simple as that. Maybe one day the RIAA will figure that out... probably not, though.
rturner2
Apr 9, 08:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
AidenShaw
Oct 8, 02:06 PM
I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that.
Yes, I was thinking of your workflow when I said that. :D
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time.
IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene) is fundamentally based on the fact that for parallel tasks you can essentially add all of the "MHz" together, and that lots and lots of slower CPUs will beat a much smaller number of much faster CPUs.
In the case of the current dual and quad core chips, you double the number of cores - but the cores aren't that much slower than the earlier chips. It's a win for lots of workloads, and not much of a loss for a completely single-threaded task.
Yes, I was thinking of your workflow when I said that. :D
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time.
IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene) is fundamentally based on the fact that for parallel tasks you can essentially add all of the "MHz" together, and that lots and lots of slower CPUs will beat a much smaller number of much faster CPUs.
In the case of the current dual and quad core chips, you double the number of cores - but the cores aren't that much slower than the earlier chips. It's a win for lots of workloads, and not much of a loss for a completely single-threaded task.
firestarter
Apr 23, 04:25 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
Your arguments would probably be stronger if you dropped this 'trendy' idea. Atheism is gaining in popularity in the US, and that increase in popularity may in part be due to other attributes of the atheist social group. But membership of social groups has always been this way... how many 'theists' go to church because they like to meet people, sing and have a cup of tea on a Sunday?
To label as 'trendy' is to apply a dismissive label, which I don't believe forwards the argument.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
I think you're probably right. American atheists probably aren't 'intellectually lazy' as they're forced to justify their position much more than a European atheist would be. They've consciously chosen to reject an established belief and choose an alternate - some thought and decision process would be involved in that.
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
Your arguments would probably be stronger if you dropped this 'trendy' idea. Atheism is gaining in popularity in the US, and that increase in popularity may in part be due to other attributes of the atheist social group. But membership of social groups has always been this way... how many 'theists' go to church because they like to meet people, sing and have a cup of tea on a Sunday?
To label as 'trendy' is to apply a dismissive label, which I don't believe forwards the argument.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
I think you're probably right. American atheists probably aren't 'intellectually lazy' as they're forced to justify their position much more than a European atheist would be. They've consciously chosen to reject an established belief and choose an alternate - some thought and decision process would be involved in that.
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
milozauckerman
Jul 14, 02:20 PM
I got excited for a second - hey a $1799 low end quad, I'm sold! Oh, wait, just one processor, never mind.
Too expensive on the low-end, if true. I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Too expensive on the low-end, if true. I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
joepunk
Mar 12, 07:56 PM
0106 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698): The director general of the UN nuclear watchdog (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, says he hopes the actions taken by the Japanese authorities at the power plant will be successful: "The IAEA was informed by the Japanese authorities that the explosion occurred outside the primary containment vessel at unit one and the integrity of that vessel is confirmed. The IAEA has been informed that sea water with boron is being injected into the vessel as a counter-measure to prevent possible damage to the core. I hope that the sea water will be injected successfully and that the safety of unit one will be established as soon as possible."
0147: The legal limit for radioactivity has been passed at the Fukushima plant, AFP says, quoting Japan's Kyodo news agency.
0152: Yaroslav Shtrombakh, a Russian nuclear expert, has told the Associated Press that it is unlikely that the Japanese plant will suffer a meltdown like the one in 1986 at Chernobyl, when a reactor exploded and sent a cloud of radiation over much of Europe. That reactor, unlike the reactors at Fukushima, was not housed in a sealed container.
0147: The legal limit for radioactivity has been passed at the Fukushima plant, AFP says, quoting Japan's Kyodo news agency.
0152: Yaroslav Shtrombakh, a Russian nuclear expert, has told the Associated Press that it is unlikely that the Japanese plant will suffer a meltdown like the one in 1986 at Chernobyl, when a reactor exploded and sent a cloud of radiation over much of Europe. That reactor, unlike the reactors at Fukushima, was not housed in a sealed container.
btrav13
Jun 12, 10:02 AM
However, you are unfortunately stuck in the position that if you buy the device, you are buying ATT service. As long as this continues to happen, then Apple really doesn't have any incentive to move it to other carriers. I mean, technically they do, but if there are service complaints, yet the very same people who complain still continue to purchase the new one ever year, then that's not sending a very strong message, in my opinion.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:13 PM
How does Elgato not compete?
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Oh it's a competitor for sure, but doesn't measure up in terms of market and mind share. Can you do all of the above without interfacing with your computer? That's what I thought...
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Oh it's a competitor for sure, but doesn't measure up in terms of market and mind share. Can you do all of the above without interfacing with your computer? That's what I thought...
MorphingDragon
May 2, 09:15 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Yes, we can also say its completely useless. Can you say that?
XP Antimalware 2011 doesn't count either ;)
Yes, we can also say its completely useless. Can you say that?
XP Antimalware 2011 doesn't count either ;)
rxse7en
Oct 12, 03:20 PM
Dammit! Dell just dropped the price of the 24" LCD today to $679. That's a hell of a deal for a 24", I think I may have to pull the trigger on one tonight as I really need some screen real estate to work in--this is getting ridiculous working on mags on 15" MBP and a craptastic 17" LCD I stole from my wife. Then, if they drop the prices on the 24s and 30s on Black Friday I'll buy another one.
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
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).
Multimedia
Oct 26, 04:13 PM
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.ROTFLMAO :D :p :) You're breaking my balls Ben.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar