I saw someone mention a perhaps it has a ring like Saturn and that is causing some false readings. I figure they have presumably run into this before and know how to discount that. I will go one step further and say perhaps the planet has a crazy amount of moons orbiting closely and/or other debris of various sizes swirling around it. This would increase its size mistakenly and decrease its density at the same time (as there would be significate amounts of space between planet and orbits (presumably).
Anyway thats the extent of my Grade 10 Physics, so please don't be too harsh with me!:)
In any event, how "fluffy" a center are we talking here. What defines a "Planet" from a slight congealing of gas? I say if it isn't dense enough to crush the life out of me as I try and float through on a drunken spacewalk, then I don't think it is a real planet!
Also perhaps we are looking too hard at what it is, and not what is could be or might become. Perhaps look at processes that make up our celestial bodies. I am not sure how concrete our science is as to the creation of various kinds of planets, perhaps this is part of the short (in space/planet creation terms) phase of planet construction. The gathering of a bunch of lose material that is slowing coalescing due to gravity into a rough planetoid. If the phase if brief in galactic terms perhaps this is why we haven't seen it before. The coalescing material not having totally solidified nor compress due to significant gravity and space could account for the light density and great size. A sort of proto-planet if you will, a huge glom of material just swirling around falling in towards itself slowly, just hasn't reached the stage that is it really recognizable as a real planet yet.
A) I wonder if she knows that her photo has been posed to/. B) I wonder if she realizes how many people read/. and just ogled her online
I would say either she would be flattered and excited or very pissed and upset, which state it is probably determines the likelihood that he still has a girlfriend in the end.
I am 5'10" and weigh 220lb that gives me a BMI of 31.6 or obese. I may be over weight somewhat, but obese I am not. I am also not a body builder. However I am active, play sports several times a week and work out. I am also not a sports professional. According to the BMI, the average "ideal" weight for someone that is 5'10" is 150lb. I would consider myself unhealthy at that weight. When I was 18 I was in damn good shape and 180lb and I had not filled out yet totally then. My optimal weight as I see it would probably be in the realm of about 190-195lb (depending on how much muscle I wish to try and maintain, 210lb I think would still be fine if I wanted to do the work to maintain that), which according to BMI is very overweight (still approaching obesity). Bottem line is BMI makes too many assumptions to be anywhere close to being correct. It doesn't consider natural body type or fitness level at all. I have a buddy that is in extremely good shape, but he is also very short and stocky, according to BMI he is also very overweight. I also have a friend that trains as a mixed martial artist. He is probably about 5'10 and 230lb and the guy is massive and strong. He isn't a body builder and doesn't take supplements, nor is he a pro sports professional, however is trains an awful lot yet I am sure he would be amused to find out that he is obese as well... (lets just say I wouldn't want to be the one to tell him).
So, I guess it is up to us to save the world!
According to my calculations if more dumb people procreate, which creates even more dumb people, then the whole world will be full of dumb people in no time!
I propose that those of use among the intellectually elite must take up this cause and have as much sex (and therefore more babies) as possible, if only to save the world. Even if we have to have sex with dumb women, we will be imparting precious genetic code, so that perhaps the baby may be a bit smarter than his stupid mother (btw you can reverse all the male/female roles in this, but who are you kidding). It is our duty, our obligation, to sleep with as many women as possible. It may be difficult at times, they will try and settle you down, however we will just have to hold next to our hearts the conviction needed to march forward toward are common goal of getting laid and saving the planet...
Kind of reminds me a bit of the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".
People and there assumptions.... yes so at that rate we shall have 100% efficiency in like 28 years eh? I may not have rtfa but I do know that you cannot assume a linear relationship from one point of reference. As to the rest and its applications and etc... I assume that this actually hasn't been in production yet, that this was a singular experiment that yielded some great results. When I can go our and buy said device (or the Army can), give me the news story then. Anything before, its just paper. It fine that someone is excited at the prospect of some new technology, but I have seen too many not live up to the hype. As the saying goes, I will believe it when I see it, and not before. I seem to recall a nano paint that you could use to paint surfaces and then use them as photoelectric surface, with crazy efficiency as well. That was on slashdot a long time ago. Where is it now? Probably still in some lab trying to make it A) practical in someway, or B) trying to make it so it doesn't cost 100,000$ to make a small amount of them. Anyway that is what I meant by "big deal".
Am I reading this right? This story is about breaking the record and increasing by only 2.1%? Is that really news? If it was 50%, 25%, hell even 10% that might be something. But 2.1%, gimme a break! Not only that, but this is a singular event, not something being currently translated into the 17% technology....
Meh. I bought a new motherboard from my new computer and it has ONE IDE slot. ONE. Thats including the DVD. That leaves me one slave IDE off of that and I am out. I currently have like 5 IDE drives and one SATA drive. So unless I want to use a PCI slot and buy an add on card to give me more IDE slots, I can't use them in that computer anyway (I just run them in my older computers for now).
So in short thats all I need is more IDE drives... big whoop.
I remember another article much like this one which burst my bubble about interstellar travel within my lifetime. It basically went on to say (I will skip the math class) that given todays spaceflight propulsion, the efficacy and its fuel, a space shuttle (like we currently use) in order to make the trip to Alpha-Centuri in 60 years (so roughly within ones lifetime), the shuttle would have to carry about the equivalent to all the Hydrogen that is in our Sun it order to complete the acceleration and deceleration burn cycle.
To me that was such a silly value that no matter how you tweak it, unless radically new "magic wand" type technology is developed, it will not be even remotely possible.
Once such stepping stone magic wand technology that I think would really be the turning point would be instantaneous communication. We have all hear about experiments with teleportation, but unlike the star trek version it really is just playing is what i think is called entangled pairs of electrons. Something like you entangle two (or they are already entangled maybe?) electrons, and if you change the spin or charge of one, you instantaneously do the same for the other (I think, my knowlege here is far from complete). Now if we forget for the moment about physical teleportation and instead thing about using it as a means of communication (You could maybe use it like binary, one charge or spin represents 1, the other 0), it would solve so many problems. Human interstellar travel might still be a ways off, however this would solve the nasty lag associated with communicating with such travel. This would allow us at home here on earth to use robots and the like to travel for us and we could easily control them from home. A new means of propulsion would still have to be developed, and I think it goes without saying that we would have to build robots to last. Anyway just some random thoughts....
"That's a better line of argumentation than pulling out that tired old '5% goat' that doesn't give milk anymore."
You are the second one to say this. Yet I don't understand why this is so? Care to explain you logic behind this? Perhaps I missed the memo? Give me a explination as to why this agrument is no longer valid and I will abondon it.
As the the ads, you miss the point. I am not trying to pick them apart. I am just saying that Mac users seem to implicitly trust whatever is fed to them by Apple, and either do not understand enough to know better or do not have the presence of mind to realise that not everything told to them is the whole story.
As to you backing up the point that Mac POINT BLANK don't get viruses and is valid... well taken out of context many things are true. By this stupid logic OS's like Corba and Mach V and GeoOS and other obscure really unused by the gereral population are even more secure than OSX, Linux, Windowns combined. While that is certainly a valid statement, it is a meaningless one. So saying to someone that doesn't know the context which it is made, will hear that they are the best most secure OS's in the world which MIGHT not nessesarly be true. As one user pointed out that OSX does have some security features that windows does not and according to them is more secure. That also MIGHT be the case. OSX certainly has not been tested (by hackers etc..) the same way that windows has, so you can't make the blanket statement that says one IS better than the other.
I can't believe I am defending windows... I also use Linux and while it also has security features that differ from windowns, it also is not being hit as much either. So Yes it does get less viruses (which is why I switched), however you cannot say using that cyclic logic that it is more secure because of this fact.
In many ways the two are not comparable I will agree with you on that. They have fundamentally different business philosophies for one. However the ARE being compared and some zealot is saying that PC's cost as much or are more expensive generally. Which I think is not so true. Would you say that your MacBook Pro was cheap particularly in comparison to what is out there (and I am talking hardware). I took a brief look at the pro Mac or whatever they are called after reading this article and they were a tad expensive to say the least. Well I am not sure how much insight a system admin would have for a notebook computer. I would think your expertise would be corporate and enterprise sized networks and such, but then again a sys admin can do lots of things these days I guess. As a sys admin, then why don't you explain to me if the Mac is so dependable why don't you run all your critical systems off of it? As to that "little" feature, my lowly PC can also run Linux, XP, Vista, I don't know about OSX as I have never tried that one. Well I have an old dell that is a tank of a machine (8 years old now), and so far it has run ME (which was horrible) 2000, XP, and about 8 different versions of Linux... I doubt Vista would work on it as it is too old now. Anyway it is still a POS, with at TNT32 video card 256MB Sdram, and PIII800.... big deal.
Anyway the whole point is the article was a load of BS as I find most advertisements for Apple/Mac to be. I was being deliberatly harsh with the Dumb comments as this is all stuff that has been re-hashed over and over, yet still silly comments about Mac/Apple this and that and is so much better than PC blah blah blah....Just sick of it is all.
Besides the whole point wasn't how dependable, or light, or functional, or cool, or pretty, or any of that stuff. It was comparably speaking are PCs as expensive as Macs. Their answer was yes. Which I think is dumb. You find me a Mac with a Core 2 duo, 2 GB DDR6400 ram, 500gb HD, an x1950Pro video card, professional optical speakers setup, DVD writer, 20" LCD, and plenty of room to expand for under 1700$ (including tax and shipping) and I will change my mind.
or
re-phrase the article title to say "DELL's LAPTOPS are as expensive as MAC LAPTOPS in certain price ranges" that might be true.
as Dell does not equal PC Dell laptops does not equal PC >2500$ does not equal PC
Perhaps I was being strong with my "dumb" comment. I was trying to accentuate a point.
That would be another valid perspective, you screw with that stuff all day, and don't want to do it at home, fair enough.
I can understand, I ran linux at home for sometime and it would be frustrating at times, to the point of getting a bit sick of tinkering with it just to work basic things.
However, the point holds. You do not have to be mentally dumb to just WANT to be ignorant (on purpose). I don't consider myself stupid, but I don't know the inner workings of my car very well, nor do I need to, I have people for that. Which is what probably some APPLE/MAC folks are like. Nothing wrong with that. However, if I were to say that my BMW is actually cheaper than your Hyundai, I am pretty sure someone might come out and call me an idiot. If you have seen the Hyundai commercial, apparently it is the same, yet 28,000$ cheaper! Now we all know it isn't the same, but we also know that one is cheaper than the other. You mentioned yourself that you didn't mind spending more. The whole point of this is some nut saying that Macs are the same price or cheaper than a PC which I think is wrong on several levels.
I also think most BMW drivers are morons also. Sure its a nice car, and generally a higher quality than some, but you are really paying above and beyond for the status and name. I can understand the folks who are car nuts, and love their Beemer, the engineering and all that. It is the other 9 out of 10 bozos that buy them for status symbols that irk me. Anyway I hope you were just using BMW as a random example!:)
Hmmmm I think I do stand by my "dumb" comment. As I though you mis-read my sentence. However it seems that you didn't you just disregarded it. I am certainly NOT saying that Macs have weak security. I am also not Saying that window's has better security.
What I did say is that Macs are not Targeted by malware be it virus or whatever like Windows are. What is absurd is stating that a computer with 5% of the market share is more secure because Windows has had problems. That is a stupid argument. IF they had said that Mac MIGHT be more secure because of a Top-down security model that Windows does not share, that would be a valid assertion. However even saying that, you can only say "might", as you do not know in reality how that model would function under 95% market share and 95% of the target. What "We" are talking about is all theory, as in perhaps it might be. What was being said is APPLE is X because PC is Y. Which is stupid.
I think the point is due to the very nature of PC vs Mac (which is really the difference between modular component based system and a closed system that you buy) you CAN you have the option of building your own PC. You can also buy a Dell or whatever. Apple/Mac does NOT have that option. Being modular allows for flexibility, though making support and compatibility more difficult. Having a closed system, where all the components are basically controlled means you will have an easier time with support and compatibility, but you will lose flexibility. Flexibility may allow you to use the market to save money, while have control would allow you to mass produce to save money. The fact is that both have fundamentally different ways of going about things (having trouble expressing myself here, wanted to say architecture, but thats not quite true, differing point of view or philosophy is probably a better way of describing it).
So if you are saying that "Macs are not more expensive than PC's" then that would be a crock.
If it was titled "Macs are as expensive as Dell's in certain price classes", well that might hold some truth.
Tried to think of a good analogy, but I can't come up with anything.
Just for fun.
I went to the Apple store and tried to configure a Mac that would meet the specifications of the 1700$ PC I built 3 weeks ago.
#1 You can't. They don't have the high end components. Best video card you could get was a 7600GT. A 7600GT! I got a X1950Pro, and while not top of the line, a lot better than a 7600GT.
Other items not available: only 667 not 800Mhz ram tho probably not a big deal on a Mac as you can't OC it anyway (that I know of)
High end edifier Speaker system with optical
Sound card with optical (not sure if Macs have that standard on iMac or not).
#2 The Price BEFORE taxes AND Shipping was 2800$. Add all that and you are probably looking around 3200$.
Now admittedly that is including a 24" LCD, which I couldn't disselect. Whereas I only got a 20".
If I use the next model down, you get a 20" but an even worse video card in the x1600, and a price of 2300$ which is more reasonable. However add the price of the missing stuff and it isn't again, +tax + shipping, etc... The problem is you can't. The truth is yes you can compare money costs, but the fact is that those components just are not available for the iMac. You probably have to go for whatever is higher the Mac Pro or something, and I bet you those will cost ya! Sec I'll check... yeah don't go there.
Fallacy?
So you are telling me that most hackers out there target Macs rather than Windows PCs?
Either you are another silly Mac zealot or your can't read. Use context my friend and read again. Also turn on your sarcasm meter.
Seeing as I just priced out midrange laptops for a buddy of mine like 3 months ago, and I myself just built a PC 3 weeks ago, I would have to say that the idea that PC's are the same price or more than Mac's is incorrect.
My buddy wanted to spend around 1000$, no more than 1200$ on a laptop. I am not a big laptop fan myself, but Dell(online), HP(online), Apple(online), and several name brands at local computer stores were compared. I liked the Dell but it was about 1400$ for what features I suggested to him. The Apple was 300$ BEYOND that. The HP was about 1200$ so he went with that solution. The brand name computers being sold by a local computer store were about the same as the Apple. So you can take what conclusions you like from that.
As to my PC. I built it from the components I wanted, bought at a store online and it cost me 1700$. To get the same PC from Dell probably would have cost me 2700$. I have no idea how much an Apple equivalent would be, but I can tell you right now it would be a hell of a lot more than 1700$. The fact that I can pick and choose what components I want, and that I have a choice of manufactures, and various places to buy said products is the strength of the PC. You can choose to buy someplace else at a cheaper price, you can choose a better component if you wish... etc... So again you can take what conclusions you like from that as well.
Here is my over all conclusion. Apple/Mac users are dumb. Some are dumb, like stupid, others dumb like ignorant. The stupid ones need something simple to use, or can't handle simple tasks such as learning how to use things. Ignorant, simply don't want to bother, and don't care. In either case the view/opinions of said individuals can also be broken down into those categories. The weight of the article is also the same. Any time I see an article written by a Mac zealot they are either too stupid to realize that their comparisons are not valid, or ignorant of the fact and just don't care to look beyond whatever conclusions they had previously made before the review was ever written. To say that I am getting somewhat tired of this sort of crap is evident in the harshness of this post. This was probably just a Troll post anyway.
Don't get me wrong I am far from a PC fanboy. Just get the damn facts straight. Macs are good. They are also less flexible, and more expensive than a PC. Apple tried the TCO bullshit argument, just the same as window's tried the TCO against linux. The idea that you would pay more in tech support, upgrades, etc... all BS. One of the problems is that most PC owners take whatever their masters say with a grain of salt, and until a thing is proven independently not to buy in. I have see too many times some apple punk will say, "My apple is faster and better than your PC, because Apple told me so, here is a graph and everything!". See my comment about stupid above.
A key example of this are the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" commercials. Don't get me wrong I love them and think they are well done and funny. However they are only really truthful if A) you are stupid and b)you take them without context. One of the stupid comments in the post (no doubt gleaned from the truthiness commercial) is that Macs are somehow more secure than PCs. How can they even say that? Macs have what, 5% market share??!!? So they are more secure because no one will bother to write evil code as you will only hit a few machines. Again see my comment about stupid people. Now I am not saying that PC's are the most secure systems in the world, I have had my system hosed (but because I was using pirated unpatched software). In all these cases APPLE is talking about WINDOWS PC's of course. How about a Linux PC? I challenge Apple to prove that one. Anyway all I am saying is if the roles were reversed RIGHT NOW and Apple had 95% and Windows 5% of the market share after several months I am pretty sure every Apple would explode or something (yes I am being sarcastic).
Anyway I have ranted long enough on this stupid subject that seems to never
I had the same problem with DVD's. Unless the movie was made using the technology (in this case HD), what is the point? I look at the movies that were posted, and I mean FF4 sucked, and while I never watched Crank, I think I can safely say that it also sucked and I have no intention of watching it free or not. The last movie Reservoir Dogs was a great movie, but it was made like what.... 15 years ago! Somehow I doubt it uses HD technology.
Which begs the question, other than to just offer it on yet another media and suck profits up why bother. If it was filmed at a particular resolution, using a particular quality film, what more can be done. Digital magic can be done to it, but it is all just interpolation, and anyone that bought a digital camera that only has 3x digital zoom can tell you that generally speaking it helps, but basically it sucks balls. The big excuse last time around (normal DVD) was that why you could fit all these extras on the disk, in addition to the movie, what a deal! Well by and large I don't know about you, but I ignore most of these as they are pretty pathetic for the most part. So now we have HD and Blu-Ray, 15GB and 25GB respectively (approximately), whereas the lowly DVD was only like 3GB and change or 6GB and change. How much extra freakin' content do they think we need on these things? Sure new stuff that is filmed in HD, on an HD disc, on an HD player, on an HD TV, using HD cables ad connectors will look great. However everything else, or skip one of the HD steps, and you have to ask, is this just another profit grab (notice that Sony and they rest make all these devices), and if so, after all the media changes, does this industry deserve to have protection in this respect?
Anyway my rant was a bit longer than expected, but this cycle just keeps going and going. I understand the need for profit, it is the number one goal of any company. However at some point you have to take a step back, and look at what is being done to the consumer and ask is this right? (and by that I don't mean the consumer or the company, although that would be nice... The law makers who provide law for society should be the ones thinking about this. Though the current trend that I see, it could be hard for them to think coherently when they are swimming in a bathtub of money given to them by lobby groups associated with this issue, or see their opponents swimming it it)
No I didn't rtfa however, wasn't the last large scale black out caused by a switching station malfunction/failure in like Michigan? How is a redundant interconnected cable under NY city going to ensure that power is working? Unless of course NY City is on an independant grid, and produces enough power within that grid to meet all its power needs....
If not then, what is the point?
I think upgrading the aging power infrastructure itself would better fix this issue (tho I guess this is one small step), and news flash it will cost a hell of a lot more than 40 million dollars. It is also not a NY problem, but a national one. Power is a national problem (international really when you consider Canada importing/exporting power), and must be dealt with as such.
I am Canadian. I for one have never seen a "Preview". So who exactly gets to see these things anyway? Movie people? Rich People? Famous people? People involved with the movie is some way? Theater employee's? Anyway this certainly won't effect me, nor most people. The few tiny amount of people this does effect, well who the hell cares? If it means that someone won't be able to see Rush Hour 4, a week earlier than everybody else, well so be it! This is hardly an important issue. It will at least prove when all the illegal copies still keep coming out that they are full of shit and that Canada is not the issue they claim it is. If it will shut them up about us, well I say I am all for it, as I am sick of being called a criminal.
I thought we Canadians were the kingpin behind 70% of all movie piracy in the WORLD, thats was the MPAA idiots we just saying like the other day. Do to all that and not make the top 12! Well those other countries must be crazy Pirates! Yar!
Really they need to shut the hell up. Though in this case, the report is a bit, um, I don't know, common knowlege... In fact you could probably add a few more south asian countries in there like Malyasia, Singapore, etc....
URGENT REPORT: This just in, CHINA is the leader of Piracy! In other news, fire hot, sissors sharp, more details at 11pm!
Batmobile -check
General Lee -check
Magnum P.I.'s Ferrai -check
and KITT -check
Whats next
A-Team Van?
"Ah pitty da fool who buys this hunk of garbage, ha ha ha ha!"
I think you are being a bit harsh. I understand what you are saying, however I think you have to understant that most people using Vista are not "Upgrading" to it, they have little choice in the matter. Try buying a new computer somewhere... Unless you build your own, you are stuck with a really premature Vista OS. Its like forced Beta or something. Even if you build your own (which I am in the process) you are faced with the decision of buying the old technology in XP or try and ride the wave into Vista, not a easy choice. I know in the buisness world we are looking at upgrading harware in like 3 years, and it scares the shit out of everyone as probably the only viable option for desktops will be Vista by that point. Companies are already making re-developmenmt plans and risk assesments on coporate and custom software that may or may not run on Vista now (as they need at least that lead time to try and do anything about it)...
Slashdot Mirror
I saw someone mention a perhaps it has a ring like Saturn and that is causing some false readings. I figure they have presumably run into this before and know how to discount that. I will go one step further and say perhaps the planet has a crazy amount of moons orbiting closely and/or other debris of various sizes swirling around it. This would increase its size mistakenly and decrease its density at the same time (as there would be significate amounts of space between planet and orbits (presumably).
:)
Anyway thats the extent of my Grade 10 Physics, so please don't be too harsh with me!
In any event, how "fluffy" a center are we talking here. What defines a "Planet" from a slight congealing of gas? I say if it isn't dense enough to crush the life out of me as I try and float through on a drunken spacewalk, then I don't think it is a real planet!
Also perhaps we are looking too hard at what it is, and not what is could be or might become. Perhaps look at processes that make up our celestial bodies. I am not sure how concrete our science is as to the creation of various kinds of planets, perhaps this is part of the short (in space/planet creation terms) phase of planet construction. The gathering of a bunch of lose material that is slowing coalescing due to gravity into a rough planetoid. If the phase if brief in galactic terms perhaps this is why we haven't seen it before. The coalescing material not having totally solidified nor compress due to significant gravity and space could account for the light density and great size. A sort of proto-planet if you will, a huge glom of material just swirling around falling in towards itself slowly, just hasn't reached the stage that is it really recognizable as a real planet yet.
Ok now I am really just wasting work time...
.....HAD a girlfriend.
/. /. and just ogled her online
A) I wonder if she knows that her photo has been posed to
B) I wonder if she realizes how many people read
I would say either she would be flattered and excited or very pissed and upset, which state it is probably determines the likelihood that he still has a girlfriend in the end.
I am 5'10" and weigh 220lb that gives me a BMI of 31.6 or obese. I may be over weight somewhat, but obese I am not. I am also not a body builder. However I am active, play sports several times a week and work out. I am also not a sports professional. According to the BMI, the average "ideal" weight for someone that is 5'10" is 150lb. I would consider myself unhealthy at that weight. When I was 18 I was in damn good shape and 180lb and I had not filled out yet totally then. My optimal weight as I see it would probably be in the realm of about 190-195lb (depending on how much muscle I wish to try and maintain, 210lb I think would still be fine if I wanted to do the work to maintain that), which according to BMI is very overweight (still approaching obesity). Bottem line is BMI makes too many assumptions to be anywhere close to being correct. It doesn't consider natural body type or fitness level at all. I have a buddy that is in extremely good shape, but he is also very short and stocky, according to BMI he is also very overweight. I also have a friend that trains as a mixed martial artist. He is probably about 5'10 and 230lb and the guy is massive and strong. He isn't a body builder and doesn't take supplements, nor is he a pro sports professional, however is trains an awful lot yet I am sure he would be amused to find out that he is obese as well... (lets just say I wouldn't want to be the one to tell him).
In Space they can't hear you ..... whistle...... apparently.
and your beer may freeze shut.
So, I guess it is up to us to save the world! According to my calculations if more dumb people procreate, which creates even more dumb people, then the whole world will be full of dumb people in no time! I propose that those of use among the intellectually elite must take up this cause and have as much sex (and therefore more babies) as possible, if only to save the world. Even if we have to have sex with dumb women, we will be imparting precious genetic code, so that perhaps the baby may be a bit smarter than his stupid mother (btw you can reverse all the male/female roles in this, but who are you kidding). It is our duty, our obligation, to sleep with as many women as possible. It may be difficult at times, they will try and settle you down, however we will just have to hold next to our hearts the conviction needed to march forward toward are common goal of getting laid and saving the planet... Kind of reminds me a bit of the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".
People and there assumptions.... yes so at that rate we shall have 100% efficiency in like 28 years eh? I may not have rtfa but I do know that you cannot assume a linear relationship from one point of reference. As to the rest and its applications and etc... I assume that this actually hasn't been in production yet, that this was a singular experiment that yielded some great results. When I can go our and buy said device (or the Army can), give me the news story then. Anything before, its just paper. It fine that someone is excited at the prospect of some new technology, but I have seen too many not live up to the hype. As the saying goes, I will believe it when I see it, and not before. I seem to recall a nano paint that you could use to paint surfaces and then use them as photoelectric surface, with crazy efficiency as well. That was on slashdot a long time ago. Where is it now? Probably still in some lab trying to make it A) practical in someway, or B) trying to make it so it doesn't cost 100,000$ to make a small amount of them. Anyway that is what I meant by "big deal".
Am I reading this right? This story is about breaking the record and increasing by only 2.1%? Is that really news? If it was 50%, 25%, hell even 10% that might be something. But 2.1%, gimme a break! Not only that, but this is a singular event, not something being currently translated into the 17% technology....
Meh. I bought a new motherboard from my new computer and it has ONE IDE slot. ONE. Thats including the DVD. That leaves me one slave IDE off of that and I am out. I currently have like 5 IDE drives and one SATA drive. So unless I want to use a PCI slot and buy an add on card to give me more IDE slots, I can't use them in that computer anyway (I just run them in my older computers for now).
So in short thats all I need is more IDE drives... big whoop.
If I had the points I would mod you up! Exactly what I was thinking.
I remember another article much like this one which burst my bubble about interstellar travel within my lifetime. It basically went on to say (I will skip the math class) that given todays spaceflight propulsion, the efficacy and its fuel, a space shuttle (like we currently use) in order to make the trip to Alpha-Centuri in 60 years (so roughly within ones lifetime), the shuttle would have to carry about the equivalent to all the Hydrogen that is in our Sun it order to complete the acceleration and deceleration burn cycle.
To me that was such a silly value that no matter how you tweak it, unless radically new "magic wand" type technology is developed, it will not be even remotely possible.
Once such stepping stone magic wand technology that I think would really be the turning point would be instantaneous communication. We have all hear about experiments with teleportation, but unlike the star trek version it really is just playing is what i think is called entangled pairs of electrons. Something like you entangle two (or they are already entangled maybe?) electrons, and if you change the spin or charge of one, you instantaneously do the same for the other (I think, my knowlege here is far from complete). Now if we forget for the moment about physical teleportation and instead thing about using it as a means of communication (You could maybe use it like binary, one charge or spin represents 1, the other 0), it would solve so many problems. Human interstellar travel might still be a ways off, however this would solve the nasty lag associated with communicating with such travel. This would allow us at home here on earth to use robots and the like to travel for us and we could easily control them from home. A new means of propulsion would still have to be developed, and I think it goes without saying that we would have to build robots to last. Anyway just some random thoughts....
"That's a better line of argumentation than pulling out that tired old '5% goat' that doesn't give milk anymore."
You are the second one to say this. Yet I don't understand why this is so? Care to explain you logic behind this? Perhaps I missed the memo? Give me a explination as to why this agrument is no longer valid and I will abondon it.
As the the ads, you miss the point. I am not trying to pick them apart. I am just saying that Mac users seem to implicitly trust whatever is fed to them by Apple, and either do not understand enough to know better or do not have the presence of mind to realise that not everything told to them is the whole story.
As to you backing up the point that Mac POINT BLANK don't get viruses and is valid... well taken out of context many things are true. By this stupid logic OS's like Corba and Mach V and GeoOS and other obscure really unused by the gereral population are even more secure than OSX, Linux, Windowns combined. While that is certainly a valid statement, it is a meaningless one. So saying to someone that doesn't know the context which it is made, will hear that they are the best most secure OS's in the world which MIGHT not nessesarly be true. As one user pointed out that OSX does have some security features that windows does not and according to them is more secure. That also MIGHT be the case. OSX certainly has not been tested (by hackers etc..) the same way that windows has, so you can't make the blanket statement that says one IS better than the other.
I can't believe I am defending windows... I also use Linux and while it also has security features that differ from windowns, it also is not being hit as much either. So Yes it does get less viruses (which is why I switched), however you cannot say using that cyclic logic that it is more secure because of this fact.
In many ways the two are not comparable I will agree with you on that. They have fundamentally different business philosophies for one. However the ARE being compared and some zealot is saying that PC's cost as much or are more expensive generally. Which I think is not so true. Would you say that your MacBook Pro was cheap particularly in comparison to what is out there (and I am talking hardware). I took a brief look at the pro Mac or whatever they are called after reading this article and they were a tad expensive to say the least. Well I am not sure how much insight a system admin would have for a notebook computer. I would think your expertise would be corporate and enterprise sized networks and such, but then again a sys admin can do lots of things these days I guess. As a sys admin, then why don't you explain to me if the Mac is so dependable why don't you run all your critical systems off of it? As to that "little" feature, my lowly PC can also run Linux, XP, Vista, I don't know about OSX as I have never tried that one. Well I have an old dell that is a tank of a machine (8 years old now), and so far it has run ME (which was horrible) 2000, XP, and about 8 different versions of Linux... I doubt Vista would work on it as it is too old now. Anyway it is still a POS, with at TNT32 video card 256MB Sdram, and PIII800.... big deal.
Anyway the whole point is the article was a load of BS as I find most advertisements for Apple/Mac to be. I was being deliberatly harsh with the Dumb comments as this is all stuff that has been re-hashed over and over, yet still silly comments about Mac/Apple this and that and is so much better than PC blah blah blah....Just sick of it is all.
Besides the whole point wasn't how dependable, or light, or functional, or cool, or pretty, or any of that stuff. It was comparably speaking are PCs as expensive as Macs. Their answer was yes. Which I think is dumb. You find me a Mac with a Core 2 duo, 2 GB DDR6400 ram, 500gb HD, an x1950Pro video card, professional optical speakers setup, DVD writer, 20" LCD, and plenty of room to expand for under 1700$ (including tax and shipping) and I will change my mind.
or
re-phrase the article title to say "DELL's LAPTOPS are as expensive as MAC LAPTOPS in certain price ranges" that might be true.
as Dell does not equal PC
Dell laptops does not equal PC
>2500$ does not equal PC
etc...
Perhaps I was being strong with my "dumb" comment. I was trying to accentuate a point.
:)
That would be another valid perspective, you screw with that stuff all day, and don't want to do it at home, fair enough.
I can understand, I ran linux at home for sometime and it would be frustrating at times, to the point of getting a bit sick of tinkering with it just to work basic things.
However, the point holds. You do not have to be mentally dumb to just WANT to be ignorant (on purpose). I don't consider myself stupid, but I don't know the inner workings of my car very well, nor do I need to, I have people for that. Which is what probably some APPLE/MAC folks are like. Nothing wrong with that. However, if I were to say that my BMW is actually cheaper than your Hyundai, I am pretty sure someone might come out and call me an idiot. If you have seen the Hyundai commercial, apparently it is the same, yet 28,000$ cheaper! Now we all know it isn't the same, but we also know that one is cheaper than the other. You mentioned yourself that you didn't mind spending more. The whole point of this is some nut saying that Macs are the same price or cheaper than a PC which I think is wrong on several levels.
I also think most BMW drivers are morons also. Sure its a nice car, and generally a higher quality than some, but you are really paying above and beyond for the status and name. I can understand the folks who are car nuts, and love their Beemer, the engineering and all that. It is the other 9 out of 10 bozos that buy them for status symbols that irk me. Anyway I hope you were just using BMW as a random example!
Hmmmm I think I do stand by my "dumb" comment. As I though you mis-read my sentence. However it seems that you didn't you just disregarded it. I am certainly NOT saying that Macs have weak security. I am also not Saying that window's has better security.
What I did say is that Macs are not Targeted by malware be it virus or whatever like Windows are. What is absurd is stating that a computer with 5% of the market share is more secure because Windows has had problems. That is a stupid argument. IF they had said that Mac MIGHT be more secure because of a Top-down security model that Windows does not share, that would be a valid assertion. However even saying that, you can only say "might", as you do not know in reality how that model would function under 95% market share and 95% of the target. What "We" are talking about is all theory, as in perhaps it might be. What was being said is APPLE is X because PC is Y. Which is stupid.
I think the point is due to the very nature of PC vs Mac (which is really the difference between modular component based system and a closed system that you buy) you CAN you have the option of building your own PC. You can also buy a Dell or whatever. Apple/Mac does NOT have that option. Being modular allows for flexibility, though making support and compatibility more difficult. Having a closed system, where all the components are basically controlled means you will have an easier time with support and compatibility, but you will lose flexibility. Flexibility may allow you to use the market to save money, while have control would allow you to mass produce to save money. The fact is that both have fundamentally different ways of going about things (having trouble expressing myself here, wanted to say architecture, but thats not quite true, differing point of view or philosophy is probably a better way of describing it).
So if you are saying that "Macs are not more expensive than PC's" then that would be a crock.
If it was titled "Macs are as expensive as Dell's in certain price classes", well that might hold some truth.
Tried to think of a good analogy, but I can't come up with anything.
Just for fun. I went to the Apple store and tried to configure a Mac that would meet the specifications of the 1700$ PC I built 3 weeks ago. #1 You can't. They don't have the high end components. Best video card you could get was a 7600GT. A 7600GT! I got a X1950Pro, and while not top of the line, a lot better than a 7600GT. Other items not available: only 667 not 800Mhz ram tho probably not a big deal on a Mac as you can't OC it anyway (that I know of) High end edifier Speaker system with optical Sound card with optical (not sure if Macs have that standard on iMac or not). #2 The Price BEFORE taxes AND Shipping was 2800$. Add all that and you are probably looking around 3200$. Now admittedly that is including a 24" LCD, which I couldn't disselect. Whereas I only got a 20". If I use the next model down, you get a 20" but an even worse video card in the x1600, and a price of 2300$ which is more reasonable. However add the price of the missing stuff and it isn't again, +tax + shipping, etc... The problem is you can't. The truth is yes you can compare money costs, but the fact is that those components just are not available for the iMac. You probably have to go for whatever is higher the Mac Pro or something, and I bet you those will cost ya! Sec I'll check... yeah don't go there.
Fallacy? So you are telling me that most hackers out there target Macs rather than Windows PCs? Either you are another silly Mac zealot or your can't read. Use context my friend and read again. Also turn on your sarcasm meter.
Seeing as I just priced out midrange laptops for a buddy of mine like 3 months ago, and I myself just built a PC 3 weeks ago, I would have to say that the idea that PC's are the same price or more than Mac's is incorrect.
My buddy wanted to spend around 1000$, no more than 1200$ on a laptop. I am not a big laptop fan myself, but Dell(online), HP(online), Apple(online), and several name brands at local computer stores were compared. I liked the Dell but it was about 1400$ for what features I suggested to him. The Apple was 300$ BEYOND that. The HP was about 1200$ so he went with that solution. The brand name computers being sold by a local computer store were about the same as the Apple. So you can take what conclusions you like from that.
As to my PC. I built it from the components I wanted, bought at a store online and it cost me 1700$. To get the same PC from Dell probably would have cost me 2700$. I have no idea how much an Apple equivalent would be, but I can tell you right now it would be a hell of a lot more than 1700$. The fact that I can pick and choose what components I want, and that I have a choice of manufactures, and various places to buy said products is the strength of the PC. You can choose to buy someplace else at a cheaper price, you can choose a better component if you wish... etc... So again you can take what conclusions you like from that as well.
Here is my over all conclusion. Apple/Mac users are dumb. Some are dumb, like stupid, others dumb like ignorant. The stupid ones need something simple to use, or can't handle simple tasks such as learning how to use things. Ignorant, simply don't want to bother, and don't care. In either case the view/opinions of said individuals can also be broken down into those categories. The weight of the article is also the same. Any time I see an article written by a Mac zealot they are either too stupid to realize that their comparisons are not valid, or ignorant of the fact and just don't care to look beyond whatever conclusions they had previously made before the review was ever written. To say that I am getting somewhat tired of this sort of crap is evident in the harshness of this post. This was probably just a Troll post anyway.
Don't get me wrong I am far from a PC fanboy. Just get the damn facts straight. Macs are good. They are also less flexible, and more expensive than a PC. Apple tried the TCO bullshit argument, just the same as window's tried the TCO against linux. The idea that you would pay more in tech support, upgrades, etc... all BS. One of the problems is that most PC owners take whatever their masters say with a grain of salt, and until a thing is proven independently not to buy in. I have see too many times some apple punk will say, "My apple is faster and better than your PC, because Apple told me so, here is a graph and everything!". See my comment about stupid above.
A key example of this are the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" commercials. Don't get me wrong I love them and think they are well done and funny. However they are only really truthful if A) you are stupid and b)you take them without context. One of the stupid comments in the post (no doubt gleaned from the truthiness commercial) is that Macs are somehow more secure than PCs. How can they even say that? Macs have what, 5% market share??!!? So they are more secure because no one will bother to write evil code as you will only hit a few machines. Again see my comment about stupid people. Now I am not saying that PC's are the most secure systems in the world, I have had my system hosed (but because I was using pirated unpatched software). In all these cases APPLE is talking about WINDOWS PC's of course. How about a Linux PC? I challenge Apple to prove that one. Anyway all I am saying is if the roles were reversed RIGHT NOW and Apple had 95% and Windows 5% of the market share after several months I am pretty sure every Apple would explode or something (yes I am being sarcastic).
Anyway I have ranted long enough on this stupid subject that seems to never
I had the same problem with DVD's. Unless the movie was made using the technology (in this case HD), what is the point? I look at the movies that were posted, and I mean FF4 sucked, and while I never watched Crank, I think I can safely say that it also sucked and I have no intention of watching it free or not. The last movie Reservoir Dogs was a great movie, but it was made like what.... 15 years ago! Somehow I doubt it uses HD technology. Which begs the question, other than to just offer it on yet another media and suck profits up why bother. If it was filmed at a particular resolution, using a particular quality film, what more can be done. Digital magic can be done to it, but it is all just interpolation, and anyone that bought a digital camera that only has 3x digital zoom can tell you that generally speaking it helps, but basically it sucks balls. The big excuse last time around (normal DVD) was that why you could fit all these extras on the disk, in addition to the movie, what a deal! Well by and large I don't know about you, but I ignore most of these as they are pretty pathetic for the most part. So now we have HD and Blu-Ray, 15GB and 25GB respectively (approximately), whereas the lowly DVD was only like 3GB and change or 6GB and change. How much extra freakin' content do they think we need on these things? Sure new stuff that is filmed in HD, on an HD disc, on an HD player, on an HD TV, using HD cables ad connectors will look great. However everything else, or skip one of the HD steps, and you have to ask, is this just another profit grab (notice that Sony and they rest make all these devices), and if so, after all the media changes, does this industry deserve to have protection in this respect? Anyway my rant was a bit longer than expected, but this cycle just keeps going and going. I understand the need for profit, it is the number one goal of any company. However at some point you have to take a step back, and look at what is being done to the consumer and ask is this right? (and by that I don't mean the consumer or the company, although that would be nice... The law makers who provide law for society should be the ones thinking about this. Though the current trend that I see, it could be hard for them to think coherently when they are swimming in a bathtub of money given to them by lobby groups associated with this issue, or see their opponents swimming it it)
No I didn't rtfa however, wasn't the last large scale black out caused by a switching station malfunction/failure in like Michigan? How is a redundant interconnected cable under NY city going to ensure that power is working? Unless of course NY City is on an independant grid, and produces enough power within that grid to meet all its power needs....
If not then, what is the point?
I think upgrading the aging power infrastructure itself would better fix this issue (tho I guess this is one small step), and news flash it will cost a hell of a lot more than 40 million dollars. It is also not a NY problem, but a national one. Power is a national problem (international really when you consider Canada importing/exporting power), and must be dealt with as such.
I am Canadian. I for one have never seen a "Preview". So who exactly gets to see these things anyway? Movie people? Rich People? Famous people? People involved with the movie is some way? Theater employee's? Anyway this certainly won't effect me, nor most people. The few tiny amount of people this does effect, well who the hell cares? If it means that someone won't be able to see Rush Hour 4, a week earlier than everybody else, well so be it! This is hardly an important issue. It will at least prove when all the illegal copies still keep coming out that they are full of shit and that Canada is not the issue they claim it is. If it will shut them up about us, well I say I am all for it, as I am sick of being called a criminal.
I thought we Canadians were the kingpin behind 70% of all movie piracy in the WORLD, thats was the MPAA idiots we just saying like the other day. Do to all that and not make the top 12! Well those other countries must be crazy Pirates! Yar!
Really they need to shut the hell up. Though in this case, the report is a bit, um, I don't know, common knowlege... In fact you could probably add a few more south asian countries in there like Malyasia, Singapore, etc....
URGENT REPORT: This just in, CHINA is the leader of Piracy! In other news, fire hot, sissors sharp, more details at 11pm!
Batmobile -check General Lee -check Magnum P.I.'s Ferrai -check and KITT -check Whats next A-Team Van? "Ah pitty da fool who buys this hunk of garbage, ha ha ha ha!"
Sometimes I love moderation. How the heck did the parent post get modded "Informative".... too funny.
I think you are being a bit harsh. I understand what you are saying, however I think you have to understant that most people using Vista are not "Upgrading" to it, they have little choice in the matter. Try buying a new computer somewhere... Unless you build your own, you are stuck with a really premature Vista OS. Its like forced Beta or something. Even if you build your own (which I am in the process) you are faced with the decision of buying the old technology in XP or try and ride the wave into Vista, not a easy choice. I know in the buisness world we are looking at upgrading harware in like 3 years, and it scares the shit out of everyone as probably the only viable option for desktops will be Vista by that point. Companies are already making re-developmenmt plans and risk assesments on coporate and custom software that may or may not run on Vista now (as they need at least that lead time to try and do anything about it)...