Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
more...
space2go
Mar 20, 08:25 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
more...
awmazz
Mar 14, 12:07 AM
I sure as hell would not want wind turbines on the roof of houses. The noise from them would drive me insane.
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
more...
AppleinJapan
Sep 20, 10:26 PM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
eric_n_dfw
Mar 21, 07:05 AM
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.Good for you, I am too. But as someone else here said, "I want a pony!"
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
more...
nmrrjw66
Mar 25, 10:46 AM
It's astonishing that people still listen and follow a bunch of kid ****ers.
more...
Will_reed
Jul 11, 10:12 PM
I wonder if this will be good enough to cut my 4k footage off my yet to purchase red camera. How ever I think the quad g5 would be enough.
more...
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
dcranston
Sep 21, 04:30 AM
I'm glad to see at least a few people get it. Obviously iTV isn't for everyone. But let's take a look at the 6 most common complaints on this board:
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:41 PM
I agree with you, brother. God bless you.
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
more...
javajedi
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
tigress666
Apr 9, 11:59 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
Bah! Stir-frying is better! Healthier too.
Bah! Stir-frying is better! Healthier too.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 10:55 AM
Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance?
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 04:29 PM
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 06:11 PM
- Grid energy storage tech needs to advance so renewables can be integrated into base load and we can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
We need to operate on the assumption that storage technology is not going to fundamentally improve.
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
We need to operate on the assumption that storage technology is not going to fundamentally improve.
more...
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
more...
torbjoern
Apr 24, 11:13 PM
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
I'm sorry to hear that you are illiterate and southern-bred :(
I can't relate to the acronym ACT, but I hope it's not the same as an IQ test in terms of how the score is computed.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
I'm sorry to hear that you are illiterate and southern-bred :(
I can't relate to the acronym ACT, but I hope it's not the same as an IQ test in terms of how the score is computed.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:03 AM
The premise of suggesting someone on a check out line play a game on a console is silly. I mentioned the word "future" for a reason, not to supplant but for the anticipation. That obviously escaped you.
I've said elsewhere in this thread, the IOS mind numbing game is just perfect for the above scenario, you know when your waiting behind the lady who waits until everything is rung up before digging in her ginormous purse to dig out her wallet, count her money, and then dig around for loose change. IOS games are good for distraction.
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
The fact that you make a range of posts across a thread is not an excuse to make lazy assertions in one.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this is a scenario perfect for iOS, now try it in a few more. You won't regret it.
I've said elsewhere in this thread, the IOS mind numbing game is just perfect for the above scenario, you know when your waiting behind the lady who waits until everything is rung up before digging in her ginormous purse to dig out her wallet, count her money, and then dig around for loose change. IOS games are good for distraction.
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
The fact that you make a range of posts across a thread is not an excuse to make lazy assertions in one.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this is a scenario perfect for iOS, now try it in a few more. You won't regret it.
TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 06:52 AM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
more...
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:21 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.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
more...
linknprk
Mar 18, 02:52 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
more...
skunk
Mar 14, 06:18 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.What coal-fired power station had the capability of endangering so many people?
more...
Santabean2000
May 2, 08:57 AM
Annoyingly this type of thing will become all too common. Damn Apple and their great products, making themselves popular and that.
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
EvilEvil
Apr 9, 07:31 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий