Dell XPS One 24" all in one system, $2499!!!!!!! It costs $1000 more than the iMac costs. And for that, you get a Q8200 CPU, which is about $40 more expensive than the E7300. More cores, but lower clock speeds. The Dell has a crappier chipset, as evidenced by the DDR2 instead of DDR3 RAM. The Dell has a crappy video chipset. The Dell has a smaller hard drive.
I compared it to a touchscreen because that's the only all-in-one PC I know of. I don't where you shop, but touchscreen isn't that expensive. So add $100 for your touchscreen. Now deduct $100, because the iMac is 24" not 22". Now look at the fact that the iMac is better RAM, and better Video card, and you'll see that the price is pretty much identical.
no way you're getting a 9 year old PC to run Windows 7 with a "simple" RAM upgrade. A 9 year old PC would be an original Pentium 4, at most you're running at 2.2GHz, and you're using DDR 266 or 333 RAM. Windows 7 performance is horrible on the older Pentium 4's, and it's horrible on less than 2GB of RAM, even though the minimum states 1GB. Finally, you'll need to upgrade your video card significantly, or have to turn off all the graphics features. A 1GB DDR 333 stick of Kingston Value RAM is over $70. You really going to sink $140 for lousy performance on your 9 year old machine? Yeah, right.
OS X Snow Leopard Box Set: $169
OS X Snow Leopard Server with unlimited clients: $499
Windows 7 Home Premium: $199
Windows 7 Business: $299
Windows 7 Ultimate: $319
Windows Server 2008 Standard with 5 clients: $999
Windows Server 2008 20-client license pack: $799
Snow Leopard Box Set includes iLife and iWork. To get similar functionality on Windows, add Microsoft Office. How much is that?
but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac
iMac: 24" LCD, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 1066 RAM, 640GB HD, nVidia 9400m: $1499
HP iQ500t: 22" LCD Touchscreen, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2 800 RAM, 640GB HD, nVidia 9300m: $1369
I would think this would work the other way, the star's stronger gravity would be able to strip off the upper atmosphere from the planet, assuming the planet gets close enough without igniting. And I'm not entirely sure this is correct, but the subsequent loss of mass causes the planet to accelerate, which would stabilize it's orbit. Anyway, I'm not an astrophysicist, so I'll shut up now.
Think of the coin donation containers that have a curved funnel and a ramp for the coin. You drop the coin in, and it goes around and around the funnel. It's orbit slowly decays, getting closer to the hole with each orbit. As it gets closer, it speeds up. By the time it hits the neck of the funnel, it's going extremely fast, and takes much longer than one would think it should to finally disappear down the hole. Is it not possible this is the same phenomenon? Imagine if Jupiter had a decaying orbit, such that it would take a billion years to reach the orbit of Mercury. It would be going pretty damn fast by then, no?
It should be....
Obesity leads to harassment by doctors, getting shit on regularly, drinking more, having crappier jobs, lower incomes, and inferior health care. Harassment by doctors, getting shit on regularly, drinking more, having crappier jobs, lower incomes, and inferior health care can cause the loss of neurological tissue and accelerate the aging of the brain.
better?
read the link, you'll see there's over 100 physicists who disagree with the statement the APS released. In fact, they were quite upset with the APS releasing a statement without consulting the actual members of the APS. Because of this, the APS council is currently reviewing their official stance. And I didn't claim that the APS refutes AGW. I merely provided a link for you to read that shows there are members of the APS who disagree with the theory.
It's not ONE guy, it's 120+ members who have signed the petition. For all we know, it was just ONE guy who drafted the APS position to begin with! Why do you think the 120+ members are upset? They weren't consulted!
A tiny fraction (not "a large number") of the membership disagrees with the vast majority
please provide citation that the vast majority agree with this statement. From what I have read on the issue, there was no consultation with members before the statement was issued, and the members who began the petition were quite upset about it. As to my misrepresenting the APS, I did no such thing. I provided a link for you to read yourself. Nowhere in my post does it state what their stance is.
you lied by presenting the opposite of what the APS supports as if it was the APS.
no I didn't. I presented a link to an article about 120 members of the APS who were upset with the stance the APS officially issued without consulting the APS members first! I did not claim what the official stance of the APS stance was, I was merely providing proof that the science is still being debated among the scientific community.
no, you did not post a link to your source. You stated 2008 was the second warmest year since average global temperatures started being recorded with no citation. I pointed you to an article which shows NASA temperatures are way out of line with the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies, as well as both the UAH and RSS satellite records. So again, where did you get your data from? NASA?
The problem is, you're lumping together all of the output into the "bad" category. Water vapor is not a pollutant, but it comes out an exhaust pipe. Likewise, CO2 is not a "pollutant". In fact, higher CO2 levels result in faster growing and larger plants.
So when an organization makes a statement, and a large number (over 100) of members of that organization disagree with the statement and request that it be revised, you suggest that we should believe the official statement and disregard the protests of the actual members? How many members of the APS were asked for their input when the "official" statement was written? Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, and are supposed to question assumptions. So why are all the scientists who question the global warming theory being dismissed?
gadget junkie has a valid point, as there are many voices in the scientific community who are saying the science is far from settled. Your attempt to belittle him by comparing his doubt as being equal to those who doubt evolution is a flamebait.
uh, no, they were the first manufacturer to drop all legacy connects and offer USB only. They were the first to ship their computers with USB keyboards and mice. The only thing proprietary was the USB extension cable for the keyboard. The iMac triggered a wave of USB peripheral announcements. I worked in a computer superstore in 1998 when the iMac was introduced. Nobody cared about or mentioned USB much at all until Apple hyped it. By the end of 1998 though, USB was popping up on everything.
I don't think there is a reputable news source any more. They all have political biases that shape and influence their reporting. Listen to two stories about the same subject, one from CNN, one from FOX. The truth lies somewhere in between, but good luck finding a mainstream media source that will report the news without some sort of political spin. As I stated elsewhere, politicians are self serving liars. Al Gore has made himself immensely richer with the global warming scare. Every single solution the politicians come up with to "solve global warming" involves some sort of tax on CO2. If it was really and truly the crisis they make it out to be, I don't think a tax would be the "solution". Anyway, 5 years from now, when the Arctic ice is fully rebounded you can suck it up and admit you were suckered right here on slashdot. If, however, in 5 years, the ice is still shrinking, I'll come back and admit I was wrong.
first, you haven't answered why the article would state that the sun's output hasn't increased since 1978. We know it has. The article is wrong. Second, the sun's output is not cyclically variable. It doesn't follow a pattern of high-low-high-low. We know that the sun-spot cycles are typically 11 years long, but we can't predict whether the next one will be a high or low. We've had periods where the output was low for multiple sunspot cycles, and periods of back to back to back highs. So you can't average the sun's output if you're climate modelling.
Mysteriously? He picked April 16 because he wrote the article on the 17th. He also provides you with charts comparing the entire ice seasons for the previous 7 years from one source, and 5 years from another source, so you can see for yourself that, yes indeed, there's more ice in 2009 than in any of the previous years. As for your reliable sources, my comment was actually directed to the Anonymous Coward whose message I was replying to, but let's look at yours anyway. Your first is comparing 2009 ice extent to 2007 ice extent, concludes that it was larger in 2009, then compares it to the '79-2000 average and concludes it's less. How is that a relevant comparison? We already know it hit a minimum in 2005, and it has been recovering ever since. Why wouldn't they do their comparison of '05, '06, '07, '08, '09? You can do it yourself with their data, you'll see the ice has been expanding every winter since '05. '09 was the largest extent since '05. Your second source was Reuters, not really a reputable source as far as I'm concerned. They're a news agency, and news agencies all have political allegiances. And your third source? All they did was make a prediction about an ice free Arctic by 2037.
I'm not going to argue any more about your source. I'll just give you my take on the whole global warming thing. Al Gore championed the crusade to stop global warming. Al Gore is a politician. Politicians are self serving liars. Al Gore founded a company that deals in carbon credits. Al Gore's net worth has increased by over $100 million thanks to all the cap and trade laws put into place throughout Europe and the rest of the world. If he was really so concerned about global warming, and he himself actually believed his doomsday forecasts, wouldn't you think he'd be pushing for much more drastic measures than for governments to adopt a tax scheme that simply shifts carbon output from one region of the world to another? Wouldn't he adopt a lifestyle that doesn't produce 10 times the CO2 output of the average american citizen?
I studied Chemistry and Geology in university. I know from Geology that our atmosphere has contained CO2 concentrations at levels that are magnitudes higher than what they are today. I also know that the temperature was warmer, but not nearly as warm as it should have been if the current climate modelling Al Gore and the IPCC are using is to be believed. I know from Chemistry that water absorbs CO2 from the air. The ratio of how much it absorbs is related to temperature. The warmer the water, the less it holds. I know that the bulk of CO2 in our atmosphere is a fraction of the CO2 our oceans are holding. If the oceans warm, they will release CO2. If the global warming theory is true, this extra CO2 will cause further warming. Further warming will cause more CO2 to be released. You see where this leads? I don't believe that our atmosphere is so fragile that an increase in a trace gas could trigger a catastrophic heating loop that would destroy the planet. Life has survived for billions of years on Earth. If our system is so fragile as the IPCC and Al Gore are preaching, how is it possible we're still here?
what the hell are you talking about? The sun's output is variable. There's no averaging it when trying to model future climate change. And if the sun's output was higher in the '80s and '90s than it is in the 2000s, WHICH IT WAS, why does that article state that the sun's output hasn't increased since 1978?
Slashdot Mirror
Dell XPS One 24" all in one system, $2499!!!!!!! It costs $1000 more than the iMac costs. And for that, you get a Q8200 CPU, which is about $40 more expensive than the E7300. More cores, but lower clock speeds. The Dell has a crappier chipset, as evidenced by the DDR2 instead of DDR3 RAM. The Dell has a crappy video chipset. The Dell has a smaller hard drive.
I compared it to a touchscreen because that's the only all-in-one PC I know of. I don't where you shop, but touchscreen isn't that expensive. So add $100 for your touchscreen. Now deduct $100, because the iMac is 24" not 22". Now look at the fact that the iMac is better RAM, and better Video card, and you'll see that the price is pretty much identical.
no way you're getting a 9 year old PC to run Windows 7 with a "simple" RAM upgrade. A 9 year old PC would be an original Pentium 4, at most you're running at 2.2GHz, and you're using DDR 266 or 333 RAM. Windows 7 performance is horrible on the older Pentium 4's, and it's horrible on less than 2GB of RAM, even though the minimum states 1GB. Finally, you'll need to upgrade your video card significantly, or have to turn off all the graphics features. A 1GB DDR 333 stick of Kingston Value RAM is over $70. You really going to sink $140 for lousy performance on your 9 year old machine? Yeah, right.
OS X Snow Leopard Box Set: $169
OS X Snow Leopard Server with unlimited clients: $499
Windows 7 Home Premium: $199
Windows 7 Business: $299
Windows 7 Ultimate: $319
Windows Server 2008 Standard with 5 clients: $999
Windows Server 2008 20-client license pack: $799
Snow Leopard Box Set includes iLife and iWork. To get similar functionality on Windows, add Microsoft Office. How much is that?
but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac
iMac: 24" LCD, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 1066 RAM, 640GB HD, nVidia 9400m: $1499
HP iQ500t: 22" LCD Touchscreen, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2 800 RAM, 640GB HD, nVidia 9300m: $1369
I would think this would work the other way, the star's stronger gravity would be able to strip off the upper atmosphere from the planet, assuming the planet gets close enough without igniting. And I'm not entirely sure this is correct, but the subsequent loss of mass causes the planet to accelerate, which would stabilize it's orbit. Anyway, I'm not an astrophysicist, so I'll shut up now.
Think of the coin donation containers that have a curved funnel and a ramp for the coin. You drop the coin in, and it goes around and around the funnel. It's orbit slowly decays, getting closer to the hole with each orbit. As it gets closer, it speeds up. By the time it hits the neck of the funnel, it's going extremely fast, and takes much longer than one would think it should to finally disappear down the hole. Is it not possible this is the same phenomenon? Imagine if Jupiter had a decaying orbit, such that it would take a billion years to reach the orbit of Mercury. It would be going pretty damn fast by then, no?
It should be....
Obesity leads to harassment by doctors, getting shit on regularly, drinking more, having crappier jobs, lower incomes, and inferior health care. Harassment by doctors, getting shit on regularly, drinking more, having crappier jobs, lower incomes, and inferior health care can cause the loss of neurological tissue and accelerate the aging of the brain.
better?
read the link, you'll see there's over 100 physicists who disagree with the statement the APS released. In fact, they were quite upset with the APS releasing a statement without consulting the actual members of the APS. Because of this, the APS council is currently reviewing their official stance. And I didn't claim that the APS refutes AGW. I merely provided a link for you to read that shows there are members of the APS who disagree with the theory.
Just FYI, the APS is currently reviewing their official position because of the complaints they have received from their members about it.
It's not ONE guy, it's 120+ members who have signed the petition. For all we know, it was just ONE guy who drafted the APS position to begin with! Why do you think the 120+ members are upset? They weren't consulted!
Fucking denialist liars.
Fucking cult believers.
A tiny fraction (not "a large number") of the membership disagrees with the vast majority
please provide citation that the vast majority agree with this statement. From what I have read on the issue, there was no consultation with members before the statement was issued, and the members who began the petition were quite upset about it. As to my misrepresenting the APS, I did no such thing. I provided a link for you to read yourself. Nowhere in my post does it state what their stance is.
you lied by presenting the opposite of what the APS supports as if it was the APS. no I didn't. I presented a link to an article about 120 members of the APS who were upset with the stance the APS officially issued without consulting the APS members first! I did not claim what the official stance of the APS stance was, I was merely providing proof that the science is still being debated among the scientific community.
you want voices in the scientific community who say the science is far from settled?
MIT scientists: Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates."
American Physicists
31,478 scientists, including 9029 PHD's reject global warming
no, you did not post a link to your source. You stated 2008 was the second warmest year since average global temperatures started being recorded with no citation. I pointed you to an article which shows NASA temperatures are way out of line with the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies, as well as both the UAH and RSS satellite records. So again, where did you get your data from? NASA?
The problem is, you're lumping together all of the output into the "bad" category. Water vapor is not a pollutant, but it comes out an exhaust pipe. Likewise, CO2 is not a "pollutant". In fact, higher CO2 levels result in faster growing and larger plants.
So when an organization makes a statement, and a large number (over 100) of members of that organization disagree with the statement and request that it be revised, you suggest that we should believe the official statement and disregard the protests of the actual members? How many members of the APS were asked for their input when the "official" statement was written? Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, and are supposed to question assumptions. So why are all the scientists who question the global warming theory being dismissed?
Where did you get your data from? NASA?
gadget junkie has a valid point, as there are many voices in the scientific community who are saying the science is far from settled. Your attempt to belittle him by comparing his doubt as being equal to those who doubt evolution is a flamebait.
So, I guess you're pretty sick of the APS then? They're members of the American Physics Society, and they're not employed by greenhouse gas emitters.
uh, no, they were the first manufacturer to drop all legacy connects and offer USB only. They were the first to ship their computers with USB keyboards and mice. The only thing proprietary was the USB extension cable for the keyboard. The iMac triggered a wave of USB peripheral announcements. I worked in a computer superstore in 1998 when the iMac was introduced. Nobody cared about or mentioned USB much at all until Apple hyped it. By the end of 1998 though, USB was popping up on everything.
I don't think there is a reputable news source any more. They all have political biases that shape and influence their reporting. Listen to two stories about the same subject, one from CNN, one from FOX. The truth lies somewhere in between, but good luck finding a mainstream media source that will report the news without some sort of political spin. As I stated elsewhere, politicians are self serving liars. Al Gore has made himself immensely richer with the global warming scare. Every single solution the politicians come up with to "solve global warming" involves some sort of tax on CO2. If it was really and truly the crisis they make it out to be, I don't think a tax would be the "solution". Anyway, 5 years from now, when the Arctic ice is fully rebounded you can suck it up and admit you were suckered right here on slashdot. If, however, in 5 years, the ice is still shrinking, I'll come back and admit I was wrong.
first, you haven't answered why the article would state that the sun's output hasn't increased since 1978. We know it has. The article is wrong. Second, the sun's output is not cyclically variable. It doesn't follow a pattern of high-low-high-low. We know that the sun-spot cycles are typically 11 years long, but we can't predict whether the next one will be a high or low. We've had periods where the output was low for multiple sunspot cycles, and periods of back to back to back highs. So you can't average the sun's output if you're climate modelling.
Mysteriously? He picked April 16 because he wrote the article on the 17th. He also provides you with charts comparing the entire ice seasons for the previous 7 years from one source, and 5 years from another source, so you can see for yourself that, yes indeed, there's more ice in 2009 than in any of the previous years. As for your reliable sources, my comment was actually directed to the Anonymous Coward whose message I was replying to, but let's look at yours anyway. Your first is comparing 2009 ice extent to 2007 ice extent, concludes that it was larger in 2009, then compares it to the '79-2000 average and concludes it's less. How is that a relevant comparison? We already know it hit a minimum in 2005, and it has been recovering ever since. Why wouldn't they do their comparison of '05, '06, '07, '08, '09? You can do it yourself with their data, you'll see the ice has been expanding every winter since '05. '09 was the largest extent since '05. Your second source was Reuters, not really a reputable source as far as I'm concerned. They're a news agency, and news agencies all have political allegiances. And your third source? All they did was make a prediction about an ice free Arctic by 2037.
I'm not going to argue any more about your source. I'll just give you my take on the whole global warming thing. Al Gore championed the crusade to stop global warming. Al Gore is a politician. Politicians are self serving liars. Al Gore founded a company that deals in carbon credits. Al Gore's net worth has increased by over $100 million thanks to all the cap and trade laws put into place throughout Europe and the rest of the world. If he was really so concerned about global warming, and he himself actually believed his doomsday forecasts, wouldn't you think he'd be pushing for much more drastic measures than for governments to adopt a tax scheme that simply shifts carbon output from one region of the world to another? Wouldn't he adopt a lifestyle that doesn't produce 10 times the CO2 output of the average american citizen?
I studied Chemistry and Geology in university. I know from Geology that our atmosphere has contained CO2 concentrations at levels that are magnitudes higher than what they are today. I also know that the temperature was warmer, but not nearly as warm as it should have been if the current climate modelling Al Gore and the IPCC are using is to be believed. I know from Chemistry that water absorbs CO2 from the air. The ratio of how much it absorbs is related to temperature. The warmer the water, the less it holds. I know that the bulk of CO2 in our atmosphere is a fraction of the CO2 our oceans are holding. If the oceans warm, they will release CO2. If the global warming theory is true, this extra CO2 will cause further warming. Further warming will cause more CO2 to be released. You see where this leads? I don't believe that our atmosphere is so fragile that an increase in a trace gas could trigger a catastrophic heating loop that would destroy the planet. Life has survived for billions of years on Earth. If our system is so fragile as the IPCC and Al Gore are preaching, how is it possible we're still here?
what the hell are you talking about? The sun's output is variable. There's no averaging it when trying to model future climate change. And if the sun's output was higher in the '80s and '90s than it is in the 2000s, WHICH IT WAS, why does that article state that the sun's output hasn't increased since 1978?