Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:43 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
backinblack875
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:51 AM
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 04:00 PM
The problem with your view is that Nintendo is a JAPANESE corporation and they are still the boss over the USA counterpart. Apple has to kiss Japan's ass first to do that. I heard a very old story from the 1990s that Microsoft tried to buy them out which Nintendo of Japan's CEO, at the time, discussed and revealed in an interview.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:53 PM
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
arkitect
Mar 28, 10:04 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
I am not so sure he wouldn't� :p
I am not so sure he wouldn't� :p
dmelgar
Jul 8, 12:01 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
Vonnie
Mar 18, 03:01 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:53 PM
I'd be willing to bet the new iMacs and Mac Pros will only need a firmware update.
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
brianus
Oct 3, 09:30 AM
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
Hey just curious about your sig, how is your 1TB RAID set up in the Mac Pro?
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
Hey just curious about your sig, how is your 1TB RAID set up in the Mac Pro?
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:46 PM
One word.
Battery.
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Battery.
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
tempusfugit
Dec 3, 11:06 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 04:41 PM
There are plenty of gods, and goddesses too, but none of them is real.
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
God of Biscuits
Mar 23, 05:21 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
Surely
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:52 PM
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
If you're suggesting that Front Row's remote would be suitable for a DVR, I think you're dead wrong.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
If you're suggesting that Front Row's remote would be suitable for a DVR, I think you're dead wrong.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 12:35 PM
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
Nothing stays in budget here. At least nuclear provides energy all around the year; solar, wind or water energy wouldn't.
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.
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Nothing stays in budget here. At least nuclear provides energy all around the year; solar, wind or water energy wouldn't.
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.
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Eidorian
Oct 26, 11:18 PM
Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?It honestly depends on if those processors are going to fully saturate the FSB. If the FSB has a high enough data transfer rate then it shouldn't matter much that the cross talk between processors is over the FSB and not onboard via shared cache.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:44 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
miles01110
May 2, 09:42 AM
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
skunk
Apr 23, 03:55 PM
Yay! It's .Andy! G'day!
No comments:
Post a Comment