bommai
Sep 20, 10:56 AM
Mac Mini vs iTV as a pure home theatre component
Mac Mini advantages:
1) DVD drive to play movies
2) ATSC/NTSC tuner capability through eyeTV Hybrid - DVR solution. Can pause live TV, schedule recording using remote in living room
3) Onboard storage / External HD support through USB/Firewire
4) Front Row alternatives such as Media Central - Google video, You Tube, IPTV support
5) Leopard update should bring Front Row feature parity with iTV (guess!). Front Row already supports Bonjour - so you can still have a media server from which you stream data from
6) Enough horsepower to play 1080P H.264 as well as MPEG2 TS.
7) Could hookup an iSight for video chat in the living room. Could enhance frontrow so it pauses media if somebody is calling with iChat.
Mac Mini Disadvantages
1) No component video output. I have a HDTV (5 year old) that has only component video input. No HDMI/DVI.
2) DVI output may not support HDCP and might prevent future HDTV files from not displaying properly in 1080P (guess!)
3) Might run into trouble connecting DVI output to DVI/HDMI input on TV in certain cases. Not all TV models work properly with respect to scan rate, etc.
4) Is still a computer and might need keyboard and mouse to make it work for things like software update, etc. Can you VNC or ARD from another compute.r
5) Price - more expensive than iTV. But the extra features could justify it.
iTV advantages
1) Meant for a home theatre/living room. No need for keyboard/mouse
2) Component/HDMI guarantees modern TV connectivity.
3) Price. Most people already have a DVD player, so why duplicate that?
4) Stability. Stripped down functionality means less clunky feel.
iTV disadvantages
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
2) Not clear if you can buy media through iTV.
3) Other front row like programs such as Media Central won't be supported.
iTV suggestions.
I think Apple should make a home theatre edition of Mac Mini. Let it look just like the Mac Mini but make it have all the advantages of the iTV as well as the Mac Mini. Sell it for the same price as Mac Mini. The traditional Mac Mini can be used as a general purpose computer while the Mac Mini Home Theatre edition can have the following:
1) HDMI/Component output
2) Support for eyeTV Hybrid inside Front Row. Recorded shows can have a mini store - Apple can try to sell you TV episodes that you missed or episodes just like it.
3) Front Row equivalent to iTV
4) Stripped Down OS X - cannot use as general purpose computer
5) Enough HD space for internal eyeTV storage - expandable with external USB HD. Firewire could be left out if it saves money
6) iSight support built into Frontrow.
7) Bonjour support just like today.
8) YouTube, Google video and the likes.
A good media center on the PC side costs $1500 and up (a generic tower PC does not make a media centre). $600 is not bad for the Mac Mini Media Centre edition even though you might have to spend more money adding HD, eyeTV hybrid, etc.
Mac Mini advantages:
1) DVD drive to play movies
2) ATSC/NTSC tuner capability through eyeTV Hybrid - DVR solution. Can pause live TV, schedule recording using remote in living room
3) Onboard storage / External HD support through USB/Firewire
4) Front Row alternatives such as Media Central - Google video, You Tube, IPTV support
5) Leopard update should bring Front Row feature parity with iTV (guess!). Front Row already supports Bonjour - so you can still have a media server from which you stream data from
6) Enough horsepower to play 1080P H.264 as well as MPEG2 TS.
7) Could hookup an iSight for video chat in the living room. Could enhance frontrow so it pauses media if somebody is calling with iChat.
Mac Mini Disadvantages
1) No component video output. I have a HDTV (5 year old) that has only component video input. No HDMI/DVI.
2) DVI output may not support HDCP and might prevent future HDTV files from not displaying properly in 1080P (guess!)
3) Might run into trouble connecting DVI output to DVI/HDMI input on TV in certain cases. Not all TV models work properly with respect to scan rate, etc.
4) Is still a computer and might need keyboard and mouse to make it work for things like software update, etc. Can you VNC or ARD from another compute.r
5) Price - more expensive than iTV. But the extra features could justify it.
iTV advantages
1) Meant for a home theatre/living room. No need for keyboard/mouse
2) Component/HDMI guarantees modern TV connectivity.
3) Price. Most people already have a DVD player, so why duplicate that?
4) Stability. Stripped down functionality means less clunky feel.
iTV disadvantages
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
2) Not clear if you can buy media through iTV.
3) Other front row like programs such as Media Central won't be supported.
iTV suggestions.
I think Apple should make a home theatre edition of Mac Mini. Let it look just like the Mac Mini but make it have all the advantages of the iTV as well as the Mac Mini. Sell it for the same price as Mac Mini. The traditional Mac Mini can be used as a general purpose computer while the Mac Mini Home Theatre edition can have the following:
1) HDMI/Component output
2) Support for eyeTV Hybrid inside Front Row. Recorded shows can have a mini store - Apple can try to sell you TV episodes that you missed or episodes just like it.
3) Front Row equivalent to iTV
4) Stripped Down OS X - cannot use as general purpose computer
5) Enough HD space for internal eyeTV storage - expandable with external USB HD. Firewire could be left out if it saves money
6) iSight support built into Frontrow.
7) Bonjour support just like today.
8) YouTube, Google video and the likes.
A good media center on the PC side costs $1500 and up (a generic tower PC does not make a media centre). $600 is not bad for the Mac Mini Media Centre edition even though you might have to spend more money adding HD, eyeTV hybrid, etc.
recursivejon
Mar 20, 02:23 PM
If this is true (transfer of the music without DRM to be added by iTunes), then couldn't anyone with a bit of networking knowledge just pipe the packets into a file when they purchase something from the store using iTunes?
emotion
Sep 20, 02:38 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
It's not a cut down mini. Think of it more like a wireless iPod for your TV.
The iPod is a device for getting music etc in your iTunes lib into your ears. The iTV is a device for getting video content wirelessly from your iTunes lib to your TV. (The model is that you stock your iTunes lib with your existing CDs, likelwise you replace your DVD player by stocking your iTunes lib with films from your DVD collection. From then on buying both audio and films from iTunes store).
I suspect the hard drive is just for caching.
I'm guessing the problem Apple face here is that people want PVR functionality but that digital tuner standards are different all over the world (aren't they? EDIT: From wikipedia, "The technology used is ATSC in North America, ISDB-T in Japan, and DVB-T in Europe and Australia; the rest of the world remaining mostly undecided. ISDB-T is very similar to DVB-T and can share front-end receiver and demodulator components." Seems the US has chosen a different system to the rest of the world.).
You can readily get PVRs in the UK with a 80G hard drive and two digital (freeview) tuners from 120 quid.
It's not a cut down mini. Think of it more like a wireless iPod for your TV.
The iPod is a device for getting music etc in your iTunes lib into your ears. The iTV is a device for getting video content wirelessly from your iTunes lib to your TV. (The model is that you stock your iTunes lib with your existing CDs, likelwise you replace your DVD player by stocking your iTunes lib with films from your DVD collection. From then on buying both audio and films from iTunes store).
I suspect the hard drive is just for caching.
I'm guessing the problem Apple face here is that people want PVR functionality but that digital tuner standards are different all over the world (aren't they? EDIT: From wikipedia, "The technology used is ATSC in North America, ISDB-T in Japan, and DVB-T in Europe and Australia; the rest of the world remaining mostly undecided. ISDB-T is very similar to DVB-T and can share front-end receiver and demodulator components." Seems the US has chosen a different system to the rest of the world.).
You can readily get PVRs in the UK with a 80G hard drive and two digital (freeview) tuners from 120 quid.
takao
Apr 24, 11:58 AM
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
that Galileo has became a poster child of "what the church has done wrong" and science etc. though is nothing short of ironic .. considering that he got into the whole argument by dismissing the pope's model for the solar system without using arguments or science or even reading it (rather unscientific and blunt ;))
the very same pope who has been his sponsor and patron for years before even becoming pope and made him an employee of the vatican after becoming it, since he was an avid hobby astronomist
much of the story was more of a personal vendetta
that Galileo has became a poster child of "what the church has done wrong" and science etc. though is nothing short of ironic .. considering that he got into the whole argument by dismissing the pope's model for the solar system without using arguments or science or even reading it (rather unscientific and blunt ;))
the very same pope who has been his sponsor and patron for years before even becoming pope and made him an employee of the vatican after becoming it, since he was an avid hobby astronomist
much of the story was more of a personal vendetta
skunk
Mar 14, 07:30 PM
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?I have been arguing that the ramifications of catastrophic failure of these plants, quite apart from any energy and pollution costs in building, keeping them running and decommissioning them, those ramifications alone serve to put nuclear power on a wholly different level. The equation has to be considered in its entirety. Taking the other costs into account makes it quite obvious that its just not worth it.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
bobr1952
May 2, 11:40 AM
I turned off automatically open safe files years ago in Tiger and have migrated that setting over since.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
Moyank24
Mar 27, 07:27 PM
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
Of course it did. I think at one point or another all of us experienced some type of emotional pain where our sexuality is concerned. Who wants to be different? Or preached to? Or told by people like you that we may have some type of mental health issue? Or be discriminated against? It's scary and painful.
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
I wouldn't waste my time giving that quack one more hit on his You Tube video.
I guess with enough "therapy" we would be able to persuade you to become a homosexual?
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
Of course it did. I think at one point or another all of us experienced some type of emotional pain where our sexuality is concerned. Who wants to be different? Or preached to? Or told by people like you that we may have some type of mental health issue? Or be discriminated against? It's scary and painful.
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
I wouldn't waste my time giving that quack one more hit on his You Tube video.
I guess with enough "therapy" we would be able to persuade you to become a homosexual?
CylonGlitch
Mar 18, 09:55 AM
Those of you who are so upset over this, please, get a lawyer, and start a class action lawsuit. Let's get this matter settled, should we, or should we not be allowed to use our data any way we want?
I'm not a lawyer, but I do think we should be allowed to use our data how we want. If you're on the 2GB plan, who cares if you use 2GB tethering or 2GB of emails, you should be allowed to use it any way you want.
With an unlimited plan, yeah, there needs to be something in place because truly unlimited just bring out a few a-holes who abuse it and makes life miserable for everyone.
Still; let a judge decide, get this going and see who finally wins. Best case, AT&T loses and we get tethering for our data plans. Worst case, AT&T offers no unlimited plans anymore and at the end of every contract EVERYONE has to get off, and you still have to pay for tethering. I'm guessing we'll see something in the middle. You can stay on unlimited, but are not allowed to tether, or you can move to a capped plan (2gb, 4gb, etc..) but can use it any way you want.
Go for it, make it happen, let's get it settled!
I'm not a lawyer, but I do think we should be allowed to use our data how we want. If you're on the 2GB plan, who cares if you use 2GB tethering or 2GB of emails, you should be allowed to use it any way you want.
With an unlimited plan, yeah, there needs to be something in place because truly unlimited just bring out a few a-holes who abuse it and makes life miserable for everyone.
Still; let a judge decide, get this going and see who finally wins. Best case, AT&T loses and we get tethering for our data plans. Worst case, AT&T offers no unlimited plans anymore and at the end of every contract EVERYONE has to get off, and you still have to pay for tethering. I'm guessing we'll see something in the middle. You can stay on unlimited, but are not allowed to tether, or you can move to a capped plan (2gb, 4gb, etc..) but can use it any way you want.
Go for it, make it happen, let's get it settled!
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:38 AM
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks. Dude did you miss the coverage. This thing plays HD. He played Incredibles in HD. Just because the content they are offering now is 480p does not mean that it will be 6 months from now when this is released. Also the HDMI and component connectors would be pointless if it was not HD.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 04:14 PM
Yup, and early PCs had bugs too. Keep living in the past . . .
Living in the past? :confused:
The Amazon outage was last week and the Playstation network is still down.
Wow.
Living in the past? :confused:
The Amazon outage was last week and the Playstation network is still down.
Wow.
mr. who?
Apr 13, 07:48 AM
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:17 AM
Dear MacRumors,
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Machead III
Aug 29, 11:44 AM
Just look at peopel today, even in this forum. Just 5 years ago there would be far less worried faces around, we left that to the lab coats and their crackpot theories.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:13 PM
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
bunch of hewwie
Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
bunch of hewwie
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:09 PM
That was a bit harsh, wasn't it? Not even I would go as far as saying that anybody's religion is evil. But it's definitely proves to be incompatible with modern Western values, which we began to see already in 1994 (Salman Rushdie). My only comfort is that those who have contributed to accelerate the conflicts by providing a lousy integration policy, will likely be the first ones to get stoned to death. I'm a male who doesn't drink alcohol nor commit adultery (and pork meat I can live without), so an islamic state wouldn't really be that bad for me to live in... I think...
Islam is more ideology/politcal movement than a simple religion.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
Islam is more ideology/politcal movement than a simple religion.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:49 PM
One word.
Battery.
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
Battery.
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
Stampyhead
Aug 29, 12:42 PM
When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
沒有留言:
張貼留言