FX120
Mar 13, 06:22 PM
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
sammachin
Mar 18, 05:00 AM
Actually the way they are most likely doing this and the way most carriers do it is using some deep packet inspection kit or maybe even a transparent proxy.
They can look for browsing traffic on port 80 then simply pick out any users where the user agent string is that of a computer OS so Windows|Mac|Linux.
2 options to get around it are: either change your browsers UA to that of the iPhone although this will often give you mobile sites or better still send everything down a VPN, that way its encrypted and they can;t see what your doing just how many bytes :-) High VPN usage shouldn't be odd either as the iPhone has a VPN client so you could feasibly be using that.
(Used to work in a carrier designing these systems so I should know!)
They can look for browsing traffic on port 80 then simply pick out any users where the user agent string is that of a computer OS so Windows|Mac|Linux.
2 options to get around it are: either change your browsers UA to that of the iPhone although this will often give you mobile sites or better still send everything down a VPN, that way its encrypted and they can;t see what your doing just how many bytes :-) High VPN usage shouldn't be odd either as the iPhone has a VPN client so you could feasibly be using that.
(Used to work in a carrier designing these systems so I should know!)
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:14 AM
The lazy assertation is of your own making. I was expressing my desire for a future purchase of an NGP. Nothing more. If that is upsetting you, too bad. If you bothred to read, you would have noticed I said that earlier. Your "revalation" is nothing more than a "lazy assertation".
What's an assertation?
What's an assertation?
paolo-
Apr 6, 11:02 PM
I think your experience with the operating system will greatly depend on how you understand the computer and how open you are to a new interpretation of it.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
ohio.emt
May 5, 12:02 PM
I haven't had any dropped calls yet. I think the problem is more the iPhone, than AT&T's network . If I drive out of 3G service my iPhone drops service and says no service on it, doesn't revert to the Edge network most times. I have to turn 3G off or turn airplane mode of then on to get service on Edge. IMHO apple needs to fix the software in order to make the switch to and from Edge and 3G like other phone, no drop in service it just switches over. Sitting at home if I turn 3G on I get 3G signal and speed with 4 bars, but after about 5 minutes it switches to Edge. Any other phone besides the iPhone stays on 3G.
Analog Kid
Oct 26, 01:35 AM
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
Not a half bad idea really...
Not a half bad idea really...
R.Perez
Mar 16, 01:35 PM
Apparently five-point has never heard of Hubbert's Peak.
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
I Love You Mom V
Youi love town, while you tought me the words to poem Iloveyoumompoemsfromdaughterhis mom you, family poems are one of Sleep i daughter should let mom ipod
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
MacSA
Jul 12, 04:02 AM
At the bottom of the article they seem to imply that Apple will stick with Core Solo chips for the entry level mini.... YUCK :eek:
sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:03 AM
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
i love you dad poems from
love you mom poems. i love you
we love you mom poems.
i love you mom poems from
i love you mom poems
i love you mom poems from
love you mom poems. love you
i love you mom poems. i love
love you mom poems
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:10 PM
Matthew 5:18-19
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Apple OC
Apr 23, 10:57 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
wnurse
Mar 19, 10:54 PM
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
I would. I don't care if apple cancels me or not. So what if they cancel me? Am i going to get poorer?. How a company makes money by deliberatly losing customers is beyond me. Are you a apple employee or stockholder?. You sound pretty desperate. You should sell your stock quick or put your resume out there but stop posting silly stuff. As noted before, apple is not going to cancel anyone's account.
I would. I don't care if apple cancels me or not. So what if they cancel me? Am i going to get poorer?. How a company makes money by deliberatly losing customers is beyond me. Are you a apple employee or stockholder?. You sound pretty desperate. You should sell your stock quick or put your resume out there but stop posting silly stuff. As noted before, apple is not going to cancel anyone's account.
edesignuk
Oct 8, 03:33 AM
I'm looking forward to it :D
srxtr
Apr 20, 07:10 PM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
Putting aside whether it's right or wrong to download songs for free, you do know iPhones can play free songs too?
FYI iPhone is basically an iPod except it's also a phone
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
Putting aside whether it's right or wrong to download songs for free, you do know iPhones can play free songs too?
FYI iPhone is basically an iPod except it's also a phone
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:33 PM
You make an interesting point. My counter: Why are Apple not releasing the full list of regulated substances? Do they have something to hide?
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
Cromulent
Mar 26, 07:45 PM
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
Apple OC
Mar 11, 01:03 AM
Watching these Tsunami pictures on CNN ... I hope people will be OK.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/japan.quake/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Edit ... 2:15am watching it Live on CNN ... unbelievable footage
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/japan.quake/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Edit ... 2:15am watching it Live on CNN ... unbelievable footage
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Nermal
Mar 18, 04:51 PM
Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Why? He's not breaking copy protection, because the protection wasn't there in the first place.
I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom? :eek:
Why? He's not breaking copy protection, because the protection wasn't there in the first place.
I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom? :eek:
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
skunk
Mar 27, 07:50 AM
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes.I think being Catholic is a psychological problem, but it doesn't mean that I have any desire to deny Catholics the same rights as anyone else.
Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
No comments:
Post a Comment