Lau
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Sydde
Apr 25, 12:51 AM
At another website, other posters kept arguing that there were different kinds of theism and that agnosticism. My philosophy professors taught me that that atheism is the belief that there's no God, and that an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether there's a God. "
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
CalBoy
Mar 25, 11:09 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 12:37 PM
Its funny that in your guys minds that its better for someone to use 15GB a month watching netflix/streaming pandora etc. than it is for me to use 2GB tethering.
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:04 AM
Before I'd consider suicide on being fat I would first try to loose some weight maybe. I lost 30 kilograms (keeping that weight for some years now) and I am very happy with that. My personal receipt was to distract from eating with wonderful electronic gadgets. I don't need to medicate my diabetes II any more. Just try that. It's possible.
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
Blipp
Apr 13, 01:20 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.You're still just spouting the same point they are ragging on you about which is that the only thing separating you from everyone else is that you can afford the big toys and they can't. Where is the talent, customer service, work ethic and turn around time that sets you apart? A "pro" app isn't pro because it costs more, it's pro because of the tools it offers to the user. Just because some schmo can sit down in FCPX and crap out a family video doesn't mean he knows how to use all the tools together to make something truly unique with a professional's touch. Just because I own a tool box and some wrenches doesn't mean I'm going to put my mechanic out of business.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.You're still just spouting the same point they are ragging on you about which is that the only thing separating you from everyone else is that you can afford the big toys and they can't. Where is the talent, customer service, work ethic and turn around time that sets you apart? A "pro" app isn't pro because it costs more, it's pro because of the tools it offers to the user. Just because some schmo can sit down in FCPX and crap out a family video doesn't mean he knows how to use all the tools together to make something truly unique with a professional's touch. Just because I own a tool box and some wrenches doesn't mean I'm going to put my mechanic out of business.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:34 AM
Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:17 AM
Dear MacRumors,
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 11:49 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 05:34 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.Yep. This is true of many laws.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
squibran
Sep 12, 04:18 PM
I am looking forward to the specs of this device
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
lom8104
Sep 12, 04:12 PM
So would "iTV" run OS X or just Front Row? What kind of processor? Old PowerPC's perhaps?
_funny.jpg "are some funny puppy Some")
SRSound
Oct 29, 09:38 AM
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year.
I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!
I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!
Ivan0310
Apr 28, 07:34 AM
Am I missing something with the title of this article? I don't see that Apple has 'slipped' to 4th place but instead that they increased their standing from 5th place overall due to iPad sales.
ready2switch
Sep 20, 09:38 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Gelfin
Mar 27, 12:12 AM
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 06:21 PM
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
beg_ne
May 2, 10:44 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
gwangung
Apr 20, 07:05 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.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
Spectrum
Aug 29, 10:46 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
Care to enlighten us?
Care to enlighten us?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder