Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
wordoflife
Mar 18, 11:53 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I know its in the contract, but thats cheap.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I know its in the contract, but thats cheap.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:14 PM
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
What about slavery? Does a "true Christian" support (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18) slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5)?
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
What about slavery? Does a "true Christian" support (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18) slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5)?
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:11 PM
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 11:47 AM
When someone uses the word "belief" they are really saying "to the best of my knowledge, experience and understanding, I conclude this to be true". The same would go for disbelief. Since humans are not perfect, not even remotely, we can never be 100% sure. Even that tree you see in front of you has a small probability of being an illusion or a figment of your imagination.
EricNau
Mar 14, 09:29 PM
An excellent article detailing the media's exaggeration of Japan's nuclear situation. It's bad, but no where near as bad as many seem to think.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/
Octobot
Nov 2, 11:15 AM
If one follows the link,
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
Can't seem to find the above mentioned statement..
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
Can't seem to find the above mentioned statement..
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:
Cape Cod Rick
Jul 7, 06:00 AM
I love my new IPhone 4. However, I am dropping many more calls with the IPhone 4 than I did with IPhone 3G!! Yesterday, my phone dropped 3 calls- even when I was holding the phone with only two fingers and away from the bottom!!
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 01:24 AM
I made a joke before about what the hell anyone would need with 8 cores, but the truth is that I've been doing so much simultaneous photo, PS/InD, video at work this past couple weeks that I'm constantly taxing the 2GHz dual G5 w/ 4.5GB of RAM.. I mean like grinding it to a halt. Same with my MacBook, and don't even get me started on my iMac G5 Rev C.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
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.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:17 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
It doesn't do the same job. Not even close. If all you need to do is surf the web or check your email, you can get away with cheap PCs. If you want to do anything that requires some power - big difference. Intelligent people doing real work buy Macs, or PCs spec'ed out similarly (which costs about the same).
It doesn't do the same job. Not even close. If all you need to do is surf the web or check your email, you can get away with cheap PCs. If you want to do anything that requires some power - big difference. Intelligent people doing real work buy Macs, or PCs spec'ed out similarly (which costs about the same).
leekohler
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
milo
Sep 20, 05:58 PM
In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini!
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
linux2mac
Apr 28, 01:16 PM
The fact this has turned into Apple haters galore is awesome!! Its funny watching them. I guess they are hoping all their Apple hate will make Windows more stable or "leading edge." ROFLMAO
I love how Windows 8 will feature "Modern Reader." Sorry Windows fans but PDF readers have been built into Linux and OSX for a decade now. Go back to your "leading edge" Windows OS sites. Double LOL!!
I love how Windows 8 will feature "Modern Reader." Sorry Windows fans but PDF readers have been built into Linux and OSX for a decade now. Go back to your "leading edge" Windows OS sites. Double LOL!!
elbirth
Oct 13, 07:29 PM
Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
Just a quick comment about this:
I completely agree that you can get some great deals from Fatwallet forumers. My only problem with quite a number of their deals is that they require you to jump through so many loops to get them- i.e, buy at one store with a coupon via Fatwallet to get some money back via FatCash, then take it to a store to price match, send in 4 rebates, sacrifice a goat, and pray to the deal gods that it all goes through in 6-8 weeks.
dealmac focuses on finding straight-forward deals that don't require a lot of hassle and has at *least* 1 writer and 1 editor investigate any given deal before it gets posted on the front page to ensure that it's valid. Of course mistakes take place and prices change... But I'm not the type to want to try reaching out on a limb to get a good deal and risk breaking my neck (read: my finances). For the people that are willing to do it, more power to you.
Just a quick comment about this:
I completely agree that you can get some great deals from Fatwallet forumers. My only problem with quite a number of their deals is that they require you to jump through so many loops to get them- i.e, buy at one store with a coupon via Fatwallet to get some money back via FatCash, then take it to a store to price match, send in 4 rebates, sacrifice a goat, and pray to the deal gods that it all goes through in 6-8 weeks.
dealmac focuses on finding straight-forward deals that don't require a lot of hassle and has at *least* 1 writer and 1 editor investigate any given deal before it gets posted on the front page to ensure that it's valid. Of course mistakes take place and prices change... But I'm not the type to want to try reaching out on a limb to get a good deal and risk breaking my neck (read: my finances). For the people that are willing to do it, more power to you.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 03:56 PM
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
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.
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.
neiltc13
Apr 20, 05:35 PM
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
I guess I could see this supplementing my DVR. My Mac can actually already stream video to my TV wirelessly using my DVR, but the video must be in an MPEG2 format, I believe, which makes the feature fairly limiting.... So I could see it.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
driftway
Aug 14, 10:17 PM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
polaris20
Apr 21, 03:14 PM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Well, there are a few problems with your theories. First of all, there are vulnerabilities in Windows that merely visiting a web page clicked on from a Google search gets your machine infected. Or, you could visit a legitimate website that has mistakenly sold ad space to people hosting malware (this has occurred with both Foxnews.com and NYTimes.com), or you can download an app that you think is legitimate, but has spyware (like PrimoPDF).
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Well, there are a few problems with your theories. First of all, there are vulnerabilities in Windows that merely visiting a web page clicked on from a Google search gets your machine infected. Or, you could visit a legitimate website that has mistakenly sold ad space to people hosting malware (this has occurred with both Foxnews.com and NYTimes.com), or you can download an app that you think is legitimate, but has spyware (like PrimoPDF).
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
wnurse
Mar 18, 03:18 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
gorgeousninja
Apr 9, 09:20 PM
So I guess you don't watch movies, TV shows, go to the pub/bar, visit museums or browse the inte...
Hmmm ;)
I think it is precisely that so many people do enjoy, not only playing games, but going to the movies, bars etc that what is considered 'hard-core' gaming has become marginalized and frankly irrelevant.
Many many people, myself included' have spent endless hours playing games on both consoles and custom gaming rigs. I take issue when someone who knows nothing about me suggests that because I now have that same need satisfied by an iOS device means that I know nothing about gaming, whereas it is far more the case of 'been there done that'.
The stereotype of a person describing themselves as a 'hardcore gamer' being an adolescent boy with more disposable income than social skills seems, unfortunately, to be more than justified by some of the posts written here.
As someone pointed out a true 'hardcore gamer' plays games..full stop.
Games such as 'Bejewelled' and the Zynga 'Farmville' Facebook games, are played for hours and hours and hours, by millions of mainly women, who would never think of describing themselves as 'gamers', and yet to ignore that market sector, or the iOS devices is not only commercial suicide, but shows an ignorance of where the true future of gaming lies.
Hmmm ;)
I think it is precisely that so many people do enjoy, not only playing games, but going to the movies, bars etc that what is considered 'hard-core' gaming has become marginalized and frankly irrelevant.
Many many people, myself included' have spent endless hours playing games on both consoles and custom gaming rigs. I take issue when someone who knows nothing about me suggests that because I now have that same need satisfied by an iOS device means that I know nothing about gaming, whereas it is far more the case of 'been there done that'.
The stereotype of a person describing themselves as a 'hardcore gamer' being an adolescent boy with more disposable income than social skills seems, unfortunately, to be more than justified by some of the posts written here.
As someone pointed out a true 'hardcore gamer' plays games..full stop.
Games such as 'Bejewelled' and the Zynga 'Farmville' Facebook games, are played for hours and hours and hours, by millions of mainly women, who would never think of describing themselves as 'gamers', and yet to ignore that market sector, or the iOS devices is not only commercial suicide, but shows an ignorance of where the true future of gaming lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment