MacinDoc
Apr 12, 10:51 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 07:52 AM
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
Well you have a point there. The iPod was a so-called fad too. It took 8 or 9 years for it to wear off and see fickle consumers switch to the next fad, the iPhone and iPad. The iPad-like devices may be a fad but it's likely to die out b/c a it's replaced by a next gen device rather than boredom. Apple is already showing it's cards in melding OS X with hints of iOS.
Wait til the newness wears off.
Well you have a point there. The iPod was a so-called fad too. It took 8 or 9 years for it to wear off and see fickle consumers switch to the next fad, the iPhone and iPad. The iPad-like devices may be a fad but it's likely to die out b/c a it's replaced by a next gen device rather than boredom. Apple is already showing it's cards in melding OS X with hints of iOS.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base....People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 09:35 PM
iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
AJ Muni
Jul 11, 10:00 PM
WOW if this is indeed true...and appleinsider has been pretty reliable lately..
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
myamid
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Multimedia
Oct 29, 10:28 AM
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest. Each Clovertown is simply two Woodcrests combined into one pin compatible package.
Apple should take orders beginning Tuesday November 14, the day after Intel has their "Shipping" Press Event. There will not be a big delay from then and when they ship because Intel is delivering them in quantity to manufacturers right away in November and the number of orders will be small compared to C2D products as well as Woodcrest products.
I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Apple as always being slow to ship new products. My impression of the C2D iMac release Wednesday September 6, 2006 is that it was both early and rapidly deployed. I don't think many of us saw it coming and they were immediately for sale in quantity in all the Apple Stores as well as online shipping immediately.I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?Clovertowns are Xeons. They are Dual Woodcrests on one pin compatible package. They are not slower. They run 2.66GHz which is same as the stock MBP offering now. They will provide a total of 21.28GHz worth of power vs. 10.64GHz or 12GHz on the current 2.66GHz & 3GHz 4-core models. Do you know your workflow? Do you know what you use is multi-core aware or not? Do you know if you want to run multiple instances of multi-core aware applicatinos simultaneously? These are the kind of questions you need to ask yourself.
The Dual Clovertown Mac Pro is going to cost you over $4,000 once you put a decent amount of RAM in it. So are you ready for that much expense to save huge chunks of time? This is a Time-Is-Money product. If you don't see how you're going to save time with such a Mac then you may as well pass on it.
I'm sitting here writing you on my Quad G5 while I watch the paint dry on my two Toast video compression series I'm currently running so I can run a Handbrake compression series and another Toast compression series after they finish.
I have never needed so much more power in my lives with Macs since the early years '84-'93 as I do now. I think there are several others here who also are in the same boat. If you're here out of curiosity and not need, then you haven't yet realized how much you can do simultaneously on a Mac once you develop a Multi-Threaded Workload process that begs for more power all the time.
i would say that this upcoming 8-core Mac Pro is the first Mac that might be able to keep ahead of me. But in a few months I will probably be yearning for a 16-core Mac Pro as soon as Intel & Apple can put it together with independent busses for each core or at least more busses per core than one for four. Like maybe at least two for four ASAP.
Apple should take orders beginning Tuesday November 14, the day after Intel has their "Shipping" Press Event. There will not be a big delay from then and when they ship because Intel is delivering them in quantity to manufacturers right away in November and the number of orders will be small compared to C2D products as well as Woodcrest products.
I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Apple as always being slow to ship new products. My impression of the C2D iMac release Wednesday September 6, 2006 is that it was both early and rapidly deployed. I don't think many of us saw it coming and they were immediately for sale in quantity in all the Apple Stores as well as online shipping immediately.I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?Clovertowns are Xeons. They are Dual Woodcrests on one pin compatible package. They are not slower. They run 2.66GHz which is same as the stock MBP offering now. They will provide a total of 21.28GHz worth of power vs. 10.64GHz or 12GHz on the current 2.66GHz & 3GHz 4-core models. Do you know your workflow? Do you know what you use is multi-core aware or not? Do you know if you want to run multiple instances of multi-core aware applicatinos simultaneously? These are the kind of questions you need to ask yourself.
The Dual Clovertown Mac Pro is going to cost you over $4,000 once you put a decent amount of RAM in it. So are you ready for that much expense to save huge chunks of time? This is a Time-Is-Money product. If you don't see how you're going to save time with such a Mac then you may as well pass on it.
I'm sitting here writing you on my Quad G5 while I watch the paint dry on my two Toast video compression series I'm currently running so I can run a Handbrake compression series and another Toast compression series after they finish.
I have never needed so much more power in my lives with Macs since the early years '84-'93 as I do now. I think there are several others here who also are in the same boat. If you're here out of curiosity and not need, then you haven't yet realized how much you can do simultaneously on a Mac once you develop a Multi-Threaded Workload process that begs for more power all the time.
i would say that this upcoming 8-core Mac Pro is the first Mac that might be able to keep ahead of me. But in a few months I will probably be yearning for a 16-core Mac Pro as soon as Intel & Apple can put it together with independent busses for each core or at least more busses per core than one for four. Like maybe at least two for four ASAP.
manic
Jul 12, 12:42 PM
1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
I totally agree, dude. I think theyre entirely different beasts. I was just trying to make a point that keeping yonahs in macbooks just to make the mbp look like a sounder deal doesnt make business sense to apple and that well likely see meroms in MB still this year.
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
I totally agree, dude. I think theyre entirely different beasts. I was just trying to make a point that keeping yonahs in macbooks just to make the mbp look like a sounder deal doesnt make business sense to apple and that well likely see meroms in MB still this year.
balamw
Apr 11, 11:05 AM
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
btrav13
Jun 12, 10:02 AM
However, you are unfortunately stuck in the position that if you buy the device, you are buying ATT service. As long as this continues to happen, then Apple really doesn't have any incentive to move it to other carriers. I mean, technically they do, but if there are service complaints, yet the very same people who complain still continue to purchase the new one ever year, then that's not sending a very strong message, in my opinion.
ElCidRo
May 2, 09:05 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:15 PM
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.
mdntcallr
Oct 26, 11:04 AM
I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
matticus008
Mar 20, 10:49 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:23 PM
Why are so many of these posts so vehemently anti-Greenpeace? What have they done, or alleged to have done, that I've missed?
combatcolin
Oct 28, 10:57 AM
Bugger only 8 Cores.
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
andiwm2003
Jul 12, 01:40 PM
.....................................I am now convinced that many people who post in these forums are stupid(not refering to u sbarton) , If half these dumb comments went up on Xtremesystems/THG/Anandtech Forums people would get laughed at right out of the forums. Please if you do not have any sort of technical knowledge please do not post ignorant comments about how conroe deserves to go into an iMac and MacPro is too good for it.
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
.......................................................................APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS[/B] incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
.......................................................................APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS[/B] incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
dmelgar
Sep 12, 07:31 PM
Sounded like a downer to me. I haven't seen the presentation, so maybe its better than the story sounds.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
whoami
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:06 PM
I have never been to a Muslim country, but I am sure the results are amplified outside of North America ... I have worked with many Muslims here in Canada ... I have never met even one that was not completely controlling over their spouse or daughters.
Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.
20 years ago I had never heard of a Father murdering their Daughter because she was dressing "too western"
Thanks EdifyingG ... I was not going to look up all that ... pretty much sums things up
CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.
Rebuttal provided.
Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.
20 years ago I had never heard of a Father murdering their Daughter because she was dressing "too western"
Thanks EdifyingG ... I was not going to look up all that ... pretty much sums things up
CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.
Rebuttal provided.
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:24 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
DakotaGuy
Oct 9, 10:11 PM
I headed into the city after I was done teaching today and decided to go into the Gateway Country store and check out the new PC's. They are FAST and XP does seem just as nice as OSX. The guy quoted me some great prices as well. I want an all in one so I am looking at getting a new Profile. The guy told me that it is a lot faster then the iMac because the iMac has only 800MHz and even the cheapest Profile has a 1.7 Ghz processor. I use a computer at home for things like internet, email, digital photography, MP3's, etc. He showed me how great XP handles all of that stuff. I was impressed, before everyone slams the PC they really should go out and check out the new ones running XP.
Like I said before I never considered getting a PC, but after reading comments over and over by people on here I can see their point on what computer is becoming a better value for people like me who use a computer like I do.
It will probably be about a year until I get a new computer, I feel comfortable with the Mac and I do like OSX, but they seem like they are becoming poorer and poorer machines. My magical price point is around $1200-$1500 and I can't go over that. Like I said before it will probably be a year before I actually upgrade my desktop. I love my iBook and won't part with that, but I might try a Profile for a new desktop. I like the new eMac for the price, but by next year the eMac might be at 1 GHz but the Profile will probably be at 3Ghz and it just seems like a very poor value for the price.
Like I said before I never considered getting a PC, but after reading comments over and over by people on here I can see their point on what computer is becoming a better value for people like me who use a computer like I do.
It will probably be about a year until I get a new computer, I feel comfortable with the Mac and I do like OSX, but they seem like they are becoming poorer and poorer machines. My magical price point is around $1200-$1500 and I can't go over that. Like I said before it will probably be a year before I actually upgrade my desktop. I love my iBook and won't part with that, but I might try a Profile for a new desktop. I like the new eMac for the price, but by next year the eMac might be at 1 GHz but the Profile will probably be at 3Ghz and it just seems like a very poor value for the price.
faroZ06
May 2, 06:46 PM
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar