sawah
Mar 18, 08:55 AM
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:28 AM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
MattInOz
Apr 20, 11:54 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
AppliedVisual
Oct 19, 02:32 PM
Congrats! Hope you have better luck than me.. I had to refuse mine on monday because the box was mangled and crushed. Dell is shipping a new one, but I don't have tracking/delivery info yet. :( But like I said before, I have one already and love the the thing.
And now for the update... Dell re-shipped via UPS next-day. Still took until yesterday apparently to actually ship from Dell. But it's here. I just plugged it in and everything looks just fine. No dead/stuck pixels I can see. But then again, that's the way my first one was I bought nearly a year ago. After about 3 months, *POP!* one blue stuck pixel. Hehe, these two screens look maaaavolous together. :D Would it be gloating too much if I posted a pic? Heheheh... Maybe I'll bust out the camera after I clean off my desk. ;)
And now for the update... Dell re-shipped via UPS next-day. Still took until yesterday apparently to actually ship from Dell. But it's here. I just plugged it in and everything looks just fine. No dead/stuck pixels I can see. But then again, that's the way my first one was I bought nearly a year ago. After about 3 months, *POP!* one blue stuck pixel. Hehe, these two screens look maaaavolous together. :D Would it be gloating too much if I posted a pic? Heheheh... Maybe I'll bust out the camera after I clean off my desk. ;)
840quadra
Apr 28, 12:37 PM
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
kurtsayin
Aug 30, 10:40 AM
Who cares what greenpeace says about anything anyways?! They are a bunch of whack jobs who have been caught numerous times for fraud and are CONSTANTLY under investigation for fraud. This means they have a very specific agenda: Not to make the world greener when they find a problem, but to make problems in order to feel effective - even when it is entirely unnecessary.
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
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.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by nixd2001
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:33 PM
People from Pakistan and Bangladesh blame a lot of "bad habits" on cultural influence from India (I., B. and P. used to be one country). However, I have never heard of Indians behaving like that in Western countries. How come it seems so easy for Indians to integrate in Western societies, yet so hard for Pakistanis/Bangladeshis? It used to be one country, so there must be something other than just "culture"... care to tell me what it is? I already have an idea and you know very well what it is, so I'm asking you now. What is the big difference here?
To the contrary, having spoken to many Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, most of those I spoke to felt that the counties had taken a literal and poignant view of the framework provided. The same view is not supported by the majority of the population.
One thing that is apparent is that there has been a lot of innovation somewhere in the mix, which has spread towards Pakistan and Bangladesh.
India is much more diversified than Pakistan and Bangladesh, such that the population of Muslims is much less. However, that does not mean that honour killings don't happen in India - they certainly do. e.g. Punjab. I can tell you know as a fact that the majority of honour killings there are not within Muslim families.
To the contrary, having spoken to many Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, most of those I spoke to felt that the counties had taken a literal and poignant view of the framework provided. The same view is not supported by the majority of the population.
One thing that is apparent is that there has been a lot of innovation somewhere in the mix, which has spread towards Pakistan and Bangladesh.
India is much more diversified than Pakistan and Bangladesh, such that the population of Muslims is much less. However, that does not mean that honour killings don't happen in India - they certainly do. e.g. Punjab. I can tell you know as a fact that the majority of honour killings there are not within Muslim families.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:37 PM
They should have just called this iMovie pro, because that's what it is. So, Apple Color is left to die the death of Shake, huh? Wow, crazy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
gnasher729
Apr 9, 02:47 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers.
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
skunk
Mar 14, 06:18 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.What coal-fired power station had the capability of endangering so many people?
emotion
Sep 24, 03:52 AM
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
levitynyc
Apr 9, 04:46 AM
Apple doesn't care what you plug into the 30 pin adapter. Go here (http://www.itechnews.net/tag/iphone-controller/) to see all kinds of button-rich controllers for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Some plug into the connector and some operate the game over wifi, and one allows both methods. Before commenting, let Google be your friend. :)
Hmm.. then why are people always saying BUTTONS BUTTONS BUTTONS when complaining about gaming for the iphone/ipod touch?
Hmm.. then why are people always saying BUTTONS BUTTONS BUTTONS when complaining about gaming for the iphone/ipod touch?
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:21 PM
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
reel2reel
Apr 13, 07:42 AM
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)
The whole "iMovie Pro" thing is so unimaginative and boring. My guess is the whiners are the ones who don't actually use FCP for anything other than YouTube noise anyway. In the real world, though, editors and filmmakers are very excited. FCP has been a stagnant bug-fest for too long.
The whole "iMovie Pro" thing is so unimaginative and boring. My guess is the whiners are the ones who don't actually use FCP for anything other than YouTube noise anyway. In the real world, though, editors and filmmakers are very excited. FCP has been a stagnant bug-fest for too long.
Lone Deranger
Mar 14, 05:10 AM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
I'd advise you watch less of Hollywood's finest.
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
I'd advise you watch less of Hollywood's finest.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 12:24 AM
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
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? :)
Quobobo
Mar 18, 06:46 PM
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 03:01 PM
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
amorya
Apr 13, 09:38 AM
I do have to agree that Apple is strangely moving away from the core pro market that was very loyal.
I've just gone and read through the tweets from @fcpsupermeet, which describe the event. From comments like this (I pick this one as an example, loads of people are expressing the sentiment) I was expecting something really consumer-focussed, rather than:
"Really great color tools built in. Animated windows, keyed secondaries, demo looks really good."
"Auto guides and keyframes for motion effects a lot like Motion (without the silly record button)."
"Single clip match grade between shots. Just saw a VERY fast auto render."
"Automatic dual system audio via waveform analysis"
""Compound Clips": collapse chunks of media into a single clip on the timeline. How nesting always should have worked."
"Can start editing during ingest of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests"
"Resolution independent playback/timeline all the way up to 4K"
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
I've just gone and read through the tweets from @fcpsupermeet, which describe the event. From comments like this (I pick this one as an example, loads of people are expressing the sentiment) I was expecting something really consumer-focussed, rather than:
"Really great color tools built in. Animated windows, keyed secondaries, demo looks really good."
"Auto guides and keyframes for motion effects a lot like Motion (without the silly record button)."
"Single clip match grade between shots. Just saw a VERY fast auto render."
"Automatic dual system audio via waveform analysis"
""Compound Clips": collapse chunks of media into a single clip on the timeline. How nesting always should have worked."
"Can start editing during ingest of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests"
"Resolution independent playback/timeline all the way up to 4K"
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
sbarton
Jul 13, 09:03 AM
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar