darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
Eidorian
Jul 12, 02:11 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.Someone posted the BURNING G5's (970FX) wattage. Does anyone remember it?
Edit: I'm getting 970FX wattages ranging from 25-47 watts.
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.Someone posted the BURNING G5's (970FX) wattage. Does anyone remember it?
Edit: I'm getting 970FX wattages ranging from 25-47 watts.
BrianMojo
Sep 12, 05:09 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 05:19 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:07 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)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
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)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
EricNau
Mar 14, 09:29 PM
An excellent article detailing the media's exaggeration of Japan's nuclear situation. It's bad, but no where near as bad as many seem to think.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/
asphalt-proof
Sep 21, 10:40 AM
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 03:11 PM
Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 02:40 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
In a nutshell (help! I'm in a nutshell!) DRM (Digital Rights Management) is that little wrapper around the downloaded AAC files that makes it so you can only play the song on up to five computers/devices.
In a nutshell (help! I'm in a nutshell!) DRM (Digital Rights Management) is that little wrapper around the downloaded AAC files that makes it so you can only play the song on up to five computers/devices.
cadillaccactus
Aug 29, 12:54 PM
I have been a devout mac user for a while now. I get wrapped up in the apple-is-always-right mindset plenty of the time. But greenpeace is a neutral third party evaluating a number of tech companies. While GP may hold companies to a high standard, and judge critically, there is no reason for us to assume that they rated one company in a spearate fashion.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
Drewnrupe
Sep 21, 10:43 AM
I havent gone through and taken numbers but it appears that a large number of the people demanding that this device should provide DVR functionalty already have a Tivo - how many posts decrying the lack of DVR end up " I'll keep my Tivo " ?
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
The facts get distorted by deceptive TOS's from At&t and peoples own agendas.
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
rxse7en
Oct 13, 06:55 PM
Thank you very much for that tip and link. You saved me all but $11 in sales tax. So it was like getting the $1444 deal without tax. $1349 plus tax. I pulled the trigger this morning and hope to receive it next week.Looking forward to maximum desktop in one screen. Long story is I ordered the 24" about 6 weeks ago then realized I wanted the 30" when it went on sale for like $1600 + tax so canceled the next day. But Dell screwed up my credit for 6 weeks so I couldn't even order the 30 until today and you came up with the coupon just in the nick of time to save me even more than I expected to save - like another $250. Total bill came to only $1468.32. Amazing luck for me.
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:59 PM
Your quick denigration of Adobe shows how much you don't know about the industry
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:51 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 12:54 PM
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?If what you say is true, then yes that would be IT. Why won't Tigerton go in Summer '07 Mac Pros?
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?No I'm saying once you get used to the speed of a Quad and you have everyday need for all those cores, then ALL the single 2GHz DC or Dual Processor Macs are LAME. I happen to have found a burning need for as many cores as I can get my hands on this past Winter so when I turn to use the single 2GHz DC G5 PM it hits the wall of power needed in nothing flat and is crawling incredibly slowly toward the finish line all the time. Even it's basic responsiveness is considerably slower than that of the Quad's.
I'm crushing video constantly. Unusual power-all-the-time need. I need to run two, three, sometimes even four multi-core enabled processes simultaneously almost all the time and each one can use up to 3 even 4 cores on the Intel Mac Pro (I tested my apps on the Mac Pro in an Apple Store). So I am not saying it's not ok for email and browsing although that would not be possible on any of the DP or DC PMs while my video crushing operations are running as well.
That's what happend to me in January. I had a 2.5 GHz DP G5 PM and suddenly, as I really got this video crushing process rolling, I hit the wall and it was like being back in 1985 with a Mac Plus. NOTHING would work beyond crushing video very slowly. It scared me to death. In a panic, I ordered a refurb Quad G5 and thank God I did 'cause that old 2.5 GHz Dual Porcessor G5 was way underpowered for what I for what I was wanting to do all the time.
I recently went into a Fry's in Campbell just after the Mac Pros were announced. They had a sign up Apple PowerMac G5 $864.26 for the 2GHz DC same generation as the Quad but the bottom $2k model from last October '05. Couldn't pass it up. But I can tell you that it is very slow with very limited processing power compared to the Quad. I am a veteran G5 PM guy. I had the original 2GHz DP G5 like you still have, two 2.5GHz DP G5's, the Quad G5 and now most recetly, at a bargain I couldn't pass up, the 2GHz DC G5. I love 'em all. But they do not provide enough cores for the type of work I do a lot.
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?No I'm saying once you get used to the speed of a Quad and you have everyday need for all those cores, then ALL the single 2GHz DC or Dual Processor Macs are LAME. I happen to have found a burning need for as many cores as I can get my hands on this past Winter so when I turn to use the single 2GHz DC G5 PM it hits the wall of power needed in nothing flat and is crawling incredibly slowly toward the finish line all the time. Even it's basic responsiveness is considerably slower than that of the Quad's.
I'm crushing video constantly. Unusual power-all-the-time need. I need to run two, three, sometimes even four multi-core enabled processes simultaneously almost all the time and each one can use up to 3 even 4 cores on the Intel Mac Pro (I tested my apps on the Mac Pro in an Apple Store). So I am not saying it's not ok for email and browsing although that would not be possible on any of the DP or DC PMs while my video crushing operations are running as well.
That's what happend to me in January. I had a 2.5 GHz DP G5 PM and suddenly, as I really got this video crushing process rolling, I hit the wall and it was like being back in 1985 with a Mac Plus. NOTHING would work beyond crushing video very slowly. It scared me to death. In a panic, I ordered a refurb Quad G5 and thank God I did 'cause that old 2.5 GHz Dual Porcessor G5 was way underpowered for what I for what I was wanting to do all the time.
I recently went into a Fry's in Campbell just after the Mac Pros were announced. They had a sign up Apple PowerMac G5 $864.26 for the 2GHz DC same generation as the Quad but the bottom $2k model from last October '05. Couldn't pass it up. But I can tell you that it is very slow with very limited processing power compared to the Quad. I am a veteran G5 PM guy. I had the original 2GHz DP G5 like you still have, two 2.5GHz DP G5's, the Quad G5 and now most recetly, at a bargain I couldn't pass up, the 2GHz DC G5. I love 'em all. But they do not provide enough cores for the type of work I do a lot.
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:41 AM
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance! If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
mhar4
Oct 26, 01:40 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
samdweck
Oct 7, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by arn
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
1macker1
Mar 19, 09:51 AM
I'm wondering what's the big deal with this program. If i buy a CD from Best Buy, it doesn't have DRM, so why do they even bother doing it with Internet downloads.
Apple will find a way to block this non-DRM downloading...and in turn DVD Jon will another way to get around this. It will go back and forward.
Apple will find a way to block this non-DRM downloading...and in turn DVD Jon will another way to get around this. It will go back and forward.
skunk
Apr 27, 03:18 PM
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment