appleguy123
Apr 22, 11:00 PM
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 26, 12:32 PM
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
armille1
Apr 20, 07:34 PM
So when does the second gen LTE chip come out?
Gelfin
Mar 26, 01:13 AM
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
leomac08
Mar 11, 01:09 AM
Dam... I hope that damage isn't that bad, but it being 8.9 I won't hold my breathe.
I'm seeing CNN, and the images are just horrifying, images from Sri Lanka and Indonesia from the 2004 Tsunami come back:eek:
I'm seeing CNN, and the images are just horrifying, images from Sri Lanka and Indonesia from the 2004 Tsunami come back:eek:
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
Ugg
Mar 13, 12:21 PM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
Wallpaper Link: MacBook Pro
Re: Looking for a wallpaper.
hd wallpapers for macbook
best wallpapers for macbook
60 Free Awesome Wallpapers for
Macbook air e molto skin art
cool wallpapers for macbook
wallpapers for macbook pro 15.
Ipad+wallpaper+for+macbook
MacBook wallpaper black
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
Gurutech
Jul 12, 01:12 PM
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 10:08 AM
Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.
1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
macintel4me
Sep 20, 05:31 AM
I think the HD is using just for caching the streamed content. My prediction is that Apple will come out with a SAN with iTV/FrontRow streaming smarts in it. This way we don't have to run into our office to turn on our computer so we can watch TV in our living room.
BJNY
Oct 30, 09:41 PM
maxupgrades.com should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.
MacRumors
Mar 18, 02:22 PM
According to Corante.com (http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/03/17/johansen_creates_drmfree_interface_to_itunes.php), from the same authors of QTFairUse (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031122001549.shtml), comes what is described as "the fair interface to the iTunes Music Store". The application called PyMusique (http://fuware.nanocrew.net/pymusique/) acts as a front end for the iTunes Music Store and allows users to preview iTunes songs, signup for an account, buy songs and redownload songs that were bought with PyMusique.
The most notable twist is this quote from Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon"), one of the authors of the application:
It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.
The most notable twist is this quote from Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon"), one of the authors of the application:
It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.
ShnikeJSB
Oct 26, 05:16 PM
My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
nagromme
Mar 18, 04:11 PM
I have no problem with people using this, as long as people don't use it for piracy. Easier methods exist for pirating music.
The record labels will have SOME problem with this, but--like CDs--you have to BUY the music first. That's not like people signing up for one month of Napster and stealing non-stop.
Apple will have a bigger problem with this--it was tough enough for them to convince the record industry to allow downloading at all, and they'll be extra sure to defend their system now that it's successful.
And it sounds easy for Apple to fix with a future iTunes update:
1) First, force iTunes to identify itself more strictly when connecting to the store.
2) Assuming that crackers keep finding ways to spoof the iTunes app anyway... send the songs to Akamai and to the iTunes app already encrypted. NOT with the account-specific DRM, just with standard 128-bit encryption, the SAME encryption for everyone. Only iTunes, not 3rd-party apps, would have the key to decrypt those files (and add the individual DRM).
3) If the crackers manage to extract the universal key from the iTunes app, Apple need only change the key every so often to interfere. Either as part of iTunes updates, and/or by obtaining a new key online so there's one more process crackers would have to spoof.
Thinking out loud. Anyway, one way or another, I imagine this is short-lived.
The existing, easy, legal method for stripping DRM--burning to CD--is here to stay. And you lose no quality. When you re-import, you ALSO lose no quality, as long as you can spare the HD space and use Apple Lossless etc. Looking at the long-term, HD space is getting cheap.
The record labels will have SOME problem with this, but--like CDs--you have to BUY the music first. That's not like people signing up for one month of Napster and stealing non-stop.
Apple will have a bigger problem with this--it was tough enough for them to convince the record industry to allow downloading at all, and they'll be extra sure to defend their system now that it's successful.
And it sounds easy for Apple to fix with a future iTunes update:
1) First, force iTunes to identify itself more strictly when connecting to the store.
2) Assuming that crackers keep finding ways to spoof the iTunes app anyway... send the songs to Akamai and to the iTunes app already encrypted. NOT with the account-specific DRM, just with standard 128-bit encryption, the SAME encryption for everyone. Only iTunes, not 3rd-party apps, would have the key to decrypt those files (and add the individual DRM).
3) If the crackers manage to extract the universal key from the iTunes app, Apple need only change the key every so often to interfere. Either as part of iTunes updates, and/or by obtaining a new key online so there's one more process crackers would have to spoof.
Thinking out loud. Anyway, one way or another, I imagine this is short-lived.
The existing, easy, legal method for stripping DRM--burning to CD--is here to stay. And you lose no quality. When you re-import, you ALSO lose no quality, as long as you can spare the HD space and use Apple Lossless etc. Looking at the long-term, HD space is getting cheap.
nsjoker
Sep 20, 03:45 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
m4c1nt05h
May 5, 06:35 PM
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
Eniregnat
Mar 18, 05:30 PM
This concept will also work with other services that do not recode the song/data before transmission. Every DRM scheme has its flaws. I am willing to bet that Apple already has a fix and wasn�t going to release it before it was necessary.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
tigres
May 6, 10:23 AM
In Philly yesterday; the airport.
Full bars, and 3G service.
Had 29 call failed.
Dropped 5 calls, with call failed.
Had customers calls go straight to VM.
Nice....
Full bars, and 3G service.
Had 29 call failed.
Dropped 5 calls, with call failed.
Had customers calls go straight to VM.
Nice....
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:05 PM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
they'll be priced about in line with comparable systems. but that ain't cheap. I priced a dell precision workstation with dual xeon 5160 (3ghz woodcrest), 4GB 533 mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM (apple may just use 667, only $50 more for the 4 gigs) , 2x500GB SATA 3gbps HD, 512mb Quadro FX 4500, no monitor, speakers etc. and it came out to just shy of $7800.
I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.
if you add in a 20" LCD to each, the PM is cheaper by about 150.
I don't know how much more FB-DIMM will cost from apple, or how much they'll charge for sata3gbps HDs or how much more the woodcrests will cost versus the G5s. But we may see a price jump in the top end. Still we will see a nice jump in performance as well.
Of course if we adjust the above scenario away from the 3ghz Xeon 5160, to 2 of the more affordable Xeon 5150, 2.67GHz dual cores, ( 1333mt/s FSB, 4MB L2 just like the 3ghz) , the prices change a lot. $800 cut right there on the processors. The Dell is now cheaper by $350, no monitors.
FB-DIMM ram is pretty expensive. Apple cannot afford to put a huge premium on it though like they do now. Granted, it always has ECC so that is nice.
All i hope is that they have dual 3ghz woodcrests and are good enough that when I get one with clovertown MP or tigerton next year, i can get up to 64GB RAM, and at least 3 SAS or SATA 3g drives (its not called sata II).
they'll be priced about in line with comparable systems. but that ain't cheap. I priced a dell precision workstation with dual xeon 5160 (3ghz woodcrest), 4GB 533 mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM (apple may just use 667, only $50 more for the 4 gigs) , 2x500GB SATA 3gbps HD, 512mb Quadro FX 4500, no monitor, speakers etc. and it came out to just shy of $7800.
I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.
if you add in a 20" LCD to each, the PM is cheaper by about 150.
I don't know how much more FB-DIMM will cost from apple, or how much they'll charge for sata3gbps HDs or how much more the woodcrests will cost versus the G5s. But we may see a price jump in the top end. Still we will see a nice jump in performance as well.
Of course if we adjust the above scenario away from the 3ghz Xeon 5160, to 2 of the more affordable Xeon 5150, 2.67GHz dual cores, ( 1333mt/s FSB, 4MB L2 just like the 3ghz) , the prices change a lot. $800 cut right there on the processors. The Dell is now cheaper by $350, no monitors.
FB-DIMM ram is pretty expensive. Apple cannot afford to put a huge premium on it though like they do now. Granted, it always has ECC so that is nice.
All i hope is that they have dual 3ghz woodcrests and are good enough that when I get one with clovertown MP or tigerton next year, i can get up to 64GB RAM, and at least 3 SAS or SATA 3g drives (its not called sata II).
Iscariot
Mar 25, 04:50 PM
And...?
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
aegisdesign
Oct 26, 05:11 AM
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 04:30 PM
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
True it has its own list of crap apps but it is much more open. Apple current system is closed. We have rejection with no reasoning why it was rejected and on top of that 84k+ apps on the apps store are crap.
So both apple system and Jail break system are full of same percentage of crap but at least there is a better chance of finding great apps in the Jail broken world because you have both the apple side and the open side to work with.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
True it has its own list of crap apps but it is much more open. Apple current system is closed. We have rejection with no reasoning why it was rejected and on top of that 84k+ apps on the apps store are crap.
So both apple system and Jail break system are full of same percentage of crap but at least there is a better chance of finding great apps in the Jail broken world because you have both the apple side and the open side to work with.
