marmotmammal
Apr 12, 11:06 PM
I was just about to buy PluralEyes. Thus far, FCP X seems to be OK, whether it's a real upgrade, iMovie or whatever. 64-bit, editing while ingesting...that's kool. Just gotta wait for more info.
citizenzen
Mar 27, 09:50 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
So long as they only change it in one direction. :rolleyes:
So long as they only change it in one direction. :rolleyes:
CalBoy
Apr 23, 12:57 AM
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
You certainly have been dancing around it throughout this thread:
long hairstyles for men with
short hairstyles for men with
You certainly have been dancing around it throughout this thread:
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:22 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.Not to the holder of the copyright.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 11:49 PM
Apple didn't skew any numbers. Apple didn't provide these numbers. They had nothing to do with it.
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
long hairstyles for men with
hairstyles for round faces men
long hairstyles for men with
long hairstyles for round
For people with a round face,
long hairstyles for round face
hairstyles for round faces men
good hairstyles for men with
long hair styles for men
long hairstyles for men with
hair styles for each shape
long hairstyles for men with
Haircuts For Round Faces Long
Round faces are better
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
Don't panic
Mar 14, 04:14 PM
Trouble with this argument is that if everything goes completely tits-up with any other kind of power station, the results are indeed containable, but in the case of a nuclear power station, the results can be catastrophically bad. It is taking a worst case scenario to a whole different level.
oh, i am not arguing that, i am just saying that, given the circumstances, things so far has not been as bad as they could have.
of course things could still go south, but hopefully they won't
oh, i am not arguing that, i am just saying that, given the circumstances, things so far has not been as bad as they could have.
of course things could still go south, but hopefully they won't
roadbloc
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
That was the most depressing 6mins of my life. But still, good cause I guess...
neiltc13
Apr 9, 06:00 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
CoryTV
Apr 12, 11:30 PM
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
Taz Mangus
Apr 21, 03:10 PM
still not raking in the huge lion's share of industry profits? apple is, android manufacturers arent.
AndroidfoLife is quite impressed with the fact that Andriod now runs on applicances. I get a good laugh everytime I think about that. Talk about racing to the bottom.
AndroidfoLife is quite impressed with the fact that Andriod now runs on applicances. I get a good laugh everytime I think about that. Talk about racing to the bottom.
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 11:09 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Seriously....The fact that someone want to Bit Torrent over a mobile phones data connection just makes me SMH. It's so much slower then your home internet connection. Maybe they don't have home internet.... OK, give them that. But really, at the end of the day, it's 1s and 0s. Whether it comes from your phone or laptop, you should not get double charged. I will never tether as long as that extra charge is there. ATT or any other carrier will not get another 20/month from me. I think it's crooked. That's my thoughts. Again, I DO NOT tether because of that. I would if it was free, since I'm already paying for DATA whether I use it or not.
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Seriously....The fact that someone want to Bit Torrent over a mobile phones data connection just makes me SMH. It's so much slower then your home internet connection. Maybe they don't have home internet.... OK, give them that. But really, at the end of the day, it's 1s and 0s. Whether it comes from your phone or laptop, you should not get double charged. I will never tether as long as that extra charge is there. ATT or any other carrier will not get another 20/month from me. I think it's crooked. That's my thoughts. Again, I DO NOT tether because of that. I would if it was free, since I'm already paying for DATA whether I use it or not.
MisterK
Apr 9, 03:17 PM
There are a host of games that fall into the overlap between iOS devices and dedicated gaming consoles. Any of the more casual games (crosswords, Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies... anything that plays well on a touchscreen) are where Apple is eating Nintendo/Sony's lunch. I hope Apple continues to make strides into gaming because they do interfaces and hardware really well. I can see them going the way of the Kinect on the next AppleTV; this works well with Apple's assumed NO BUTTONS policy, but allows them to go beyond the very basic mechanics that touch screens limit you to.
Some games work better where you have buttons and it would be fantastic if Apple allowed 3rd party wireless controllers. These hardcore games may not have a significant enough share for Apple to need to compete here, but if they opened it up to a buttoned controller, they could have a shot at the entire market, instead of the $2 average games market.
Also, the nature of development for iOS means fewer large studio games and that means some lack of polish. You can say what you want about Angry Birds, but it's no God Of War. It would be great if Apple created their own in-house game development studio. I thought they were going this way when they released Texas Hold 'Em. They could help to raise the bar because they could put in significant resources into an inexpensive (for the consumer) game and treat it as a loss leader to sell their hardware and more app/media purchases.
Great games have come and gone, but no one has really created another Mario. Sony has shown that they are incapable of creating anything so iconic, and Microsoft has Halo � very close, but I don't think it is at the same level as a brand.
An Apple funded Mario-styled hit, along with the allowance of hardcore gaming peripherals could shut the competition down.
Some games work better where you have buttons and it would be fantastic if Apple allowed 3rd party wireless controllers. These hardcore games may not have a significant enough share for Apple to need to compete here, but if they opened it up to a buttoned controller, they could have a shot at the entire market, instead of the $2 average games market.
Also, the nature of development for iOS means fewer large studio games and that means some lack of polish. You can say what you want about Angry Birds, but it's no God Of War. It would be great if Apple created their own in-house game development studio. I thought they were going this way when they released Texas Hold 'Em. They could help to raise the bar because they could put in significant resources into an inexpensive (for the consumer) game and treat it as a loss leader to sell their hardware and more app/media purchases.
Great games have come and gone, but no one has really created another Mario. Sony has shown that they are incapable of creating anything so iconic, and Microsoft has Halo � very close, but I don't think it is at the same level as a brand.
An Apple funded Mario-styled hit, along with the allowance of hardcore gaming peripherals could shut the competition down.
peharri
Sep 21, 06:32 AM
I think those suggesting spends of $150/mo or higher should possibly back off until the unit's been in service for a year or so.
As others have pointed out, with season passes and acknowledging the number of repeats, access to even conventional TV shows shouldn't be that expensive. But I also believe there will be a significant amount of free and/or low cost content which isn't obvious right now because we're looking at the whole thing being exclusively iTS based.
Apple has already said it's going to team up with Google Video to provide content. TV shows are going to want to promote themselves by providing free pilots. Video blogs should be available. One major studio is teaming up with MyTube to provide free music videos, and I suspect that will become available in time somehow to iTV users.
In short, there's no reason to believe that it'll be necessary to pay for all the content, and certainly the content you do pay for will vary in price even given Steve's wish to keep pricing simple.
The majority of families in the US spend around $50-90 per month on a generally poor cable TV service. It's not hard to see how an average iTV using family would spend around the same amount, receiving a significantly better product in return.
As others have pointed out, with season passes and acknowledging the number of repeats, access to even conventional TV shows shouldn't be that expensive. But I also believe there will be a significant amount of free and/or low cost content which isn't obvious right now because we're looking at the whole thing being exclusively iTS based.
Apple has already said it's going to team up with Google Video to provide content. TV shows are going to want to promote themselves by providing free pilots. Video blogs should be available. One major studio is teaming up with MyTube to provide free music videos, and I suspect that will become available in time somehow to iTV users.
In short, there's no reason to believe that it'll be necessary to pay for all the content, and certainly the content you do pay for will vary in price even given Steve's wish to keep pricing simple.
The majority of families in the US spend around $50-90 per month on a generally poor cable TV service. It's not hard to see how an average iTV using family would spend around the same amount, receiving a significantly better product in return.
Quu
Apr 12, 11:18 PM
Pretty awesome update in my opinion.
peharri
Sep 22, 02:33 PM
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 11:59 PM
Huh? That's not Apple's fault; just like it isn't Google's fault Android only sells two phone models.
iOS runs on three devices and they all can run the same applications, so there's a large addressable market for developers that is important to consider.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
iOS runs on three devices and they all can run the same applications, so there's a large addressable market for developers that is important to consider.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
stcanard
Mar 18, 12:13 PM
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
anim8or
Apr 13, 12:46 AM
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
milbournosphere
Apr 15, 09:08 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 02:57 PM
The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
I haven't yet heard a good argument from a theist that used the principles of entropy or thermodynamics.
Could you put forth one of those points?
I haven't yet heard a good argument from a theist that used the principles of entropy or thermodynamics.
Could you put forth one of those points?
res1233
May 2, 03:24 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs or like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 11:18 AM
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 12:43 AM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapping into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapping into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
No comments:
Post a Comment