paulypants
Mar 18, 02:27 PM
Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:27 PM
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
pseudobrit
Sep 26, 12:21 AM
Where's the eight-core Memromn?
sinsin07
Apr 9, 04:17 AM
The delusion is this thread is hilarious. I'm seeing little casual gamers saying that Nintendo should be bought out, that Sony and Microsoft are doomed because their consoles are cheap on eBay because of device malfunctions (like Apple computers / handhelds don't?), and people claiming that touchscreens are going to replace the buttons for controllers sooner or later.
Mitsubishi Carisma 1.8 GDI
Dezmembrari Mitsubishi Carisma
LeeTom
Mar 18, 01:55 PM
OPTION 3 - they're sniffing tcp/ip traffic and depending on the traffic can identify if the originating IP has a private addressing scheme. As an ISP, I imagine that you have some leeway to sniff traffic to solve problems, but I'm not sure if this would count as legitimate.
BigDukeSix
Apr 24, 06:21 PM
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
1999 Mitsubishi Carisma GLX
1999 Mitsubishi
1999 MITSUBISHI CARISMA
URL: 1999 T MITSUBISHI CARISMA
Used Mitsubishi Carisma 1.8
Used Mitsubishi Carisma 2001
Used Mitsubishi Carisma 2002
Mitsubishi Carisma
Mitsubishi Carisma. 1999-2004
MITSUBISHI CARISMA DIESEL
2.300 1999 Mitsubishi Carisma
1999 Mitsubishi Carisma
Gebrauchte Mitsubishi Carisma
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:25 PM
Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 10:28 AM
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
SRSound
Oct 29, 10:05 AM
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
vincenz
Apr 16, 12:52 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
grue
Apr 12, 11:59 PM
I'm very curious to see what becomes of Compressor. It's buggy and annoying as it stands now, but I think it kinda needs to be a separate app unless they have a different view for doing batch encodes of stuff.
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:26 AM
How come Dells last half as long? Because they're "better made"? Do they not actually function any more? Or is it that you don't throw and Apple out because of sentimentality?
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 04:44 PM
... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:45 PM
For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
...but they are a lesser chip in some ways (more so if you also consider the chipset)...
(not forgetting AMD in the following... just trying to keep it simple... also note when I say Conroe or Woodcrest I am also implying different class of chipsets)
The simple fact is workstation class systems from most vendors (in recent history) are usually based on Xeon (now Woodcrest) CPUs with 2 sockets (if not more) while desktop class systems from most vendors are are based on Pentium 4/D (soon Conroe) CPUs with 1 socket.
So the question is will Apple replace the PowerMac G5 with a true workstation class system, or will they split the PowerMac into a desktop tower and workstation with the former using Conroe and the later using Woodcrest, or will they use Conroe only (and for the moment not have a quad core system), etc.
Historically I have stated that Apple will use Conroe in a PowerMac replacement and wait for Kentsfield to bring back the quad (doing that would give them great performance and price point)... but looking at the timing of things now (and Intel price drops) I am starting to believe either Apple will go all Woodcrest for the PowerMac (truly make it a workstation class system) or go all Woodcrest for a workstation Mac and bring out a lower end tower that uses Conroe.
...but they are a lesser chip in some ways (more so if you also consider the chipset)...
(not forgetting AMD in the following... just trying to keep it simple... also note when I say Conroe or Woodcrest I am also implying different class of chipsets)
The simple fact is workstation class systems from most vendors (in recent history) are usually based on Xeon (now Woodcrest) CPUs with 2 sockets (if not more) while desktop class systems from most vendors are are based on Pentium 4/D (soon Conroe) CPUs with 1 socket.
So the question is will Apple replace the PowerMac G5 with a true workstation class system, or will they split the PowerMac into a desktop tower and workstation with the former using Conroe and the later using Woodcrest, or will they use Conroe only (and for the moment not have a quad core system), etc.
Historically I have stated that Apple will use Conroe in a PowerMac replacement and wait for Kentsfield to bring back the quad (doing that would give them great performance and price point)... but looking at the timing of things now (and Intel price drops) I am starting to believe either Apple will go all Woodcrest for the PowerMac (truly make it a workstation class system) or go all Woodcrest for a workstation Mac and bring out a lower end tower that uses Conroe.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:34 AM
The thing that I don't like about this is that data is data. Whether it's coming from a PC thru my iPhone, or directly from my iPhone.....it's still DATA. I can't stand that they charge an extra $20 for using data that I already pay for. It's double dipping, and therefore I will refuse to use the feature. I would absolutely love to tether. There's been times where I needed it, and even though I'm jailbroken, haven't used it. I seriously think this is an area for a class action.
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:27 AM
http://www.thg.ru/cpu/20051018/images/greencreek.gif
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
OllyW
Apr 23, 02:28 PM
I don't think me being an atheist is connected to my choice of computer. I used Windows for 10 years before I bought my first Mac and I'd considered myself an atheist at least 10 years before I bought my first ever PC.
GGJstudios
May 4, 02:59 PM
You're operating based on assumptions that because it hasn't happened in a meaningful way that it cannot happen and I think that is a false sense of security paramount to emotional fanaticism.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
QCassidy352
Mar 18, 11:49 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)
I should add that I don't agree with those calling unofficial tethering "stealing." it's not taking anything from AT&T and it's not illegal in the sense of breaking a criminal law (and AT&T isn't saying otherwise). It's a violation of your contract, and AT&T is therefore justified in taking action. I agree that charging more for tethering on a limited data plan doesn't make much sense, but contracts don't have to make perfect sense.
Personally, I don't use unauthorized tethering because I believe in honoring my contracts. But it's not "stealing."
I should add that I don't agree with those calling unofficial tethering "stealing." it's not taking anything from AT&T and it's not illegal in the sense of breaking a criminal law (and AT&T isn't saying otherwise). It's a violation of your contract, and AT&T is therefore justified in taking action. I agree that charging more for tethering on a limited data plan doesn't make much sense, but contracts don't have to make perfect sense.
Personally, I don't use unauthorized tethering because I believe in honoring my contracts. But it's not "stealing."
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:32 AM
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:09 PM
Dual optical drive slots are a must. I love my Mirrored Drive Door at work for this fact.
maccompaq
Nov 12, 07:56 AM
All of my people are on AT&T so I cannot switch, because of the mobile to mobile calling feature. AT&T has a strong signal where I live, and I really like my iPhone4, so switching would not make sense. Even with all the dropped calls, I just redial and continue on.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
No comments:
Post a Comment