peskaa
Mar 14, 04:20 PM
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
Because they're quite valid? Okay, it's not the same as washing with soap, but the odd X-Ray for the patient isn't going to do anything to their radiation levels. Even if you have to get them yearly, it still adds up to nothing.
But the operator? Depending how busy they are, they can do over 30 in a single day, 5+ days a week. Taking 50mrem X-rays, towards the worst case, that could be 1500mrem a day, 7500 a week, 350,000 a year.
That's around 530 times a normal yearly dose, without touching on MRI or other medical imaging that uses higher doses. Of course they stand behind a protective screen.
Because they're quite valid? Okay, it's not the same as washing with soap, but the odd X-Ray for the patient isn't going to do anything to their radiation levels. Even if you have to get them yearly, it still adds up to nothing.
But the operator? Depending how busy they are, they can do over 30 in a single day, 5+ days a week. Taking 50mrem X-rays, towards the worst case, that could be 1500mrem a day, 7500 a week, 350,000 a year.
That's around 530 times a normal yearly dose, without touching on MRI or other medical imaging that uses higher doses. Of course they stand behind a protective screen.
more...
coochiekuta
Mar 13, 02:21 PM
surely other forms need to be developed more so their cost can go down but nuclear power i think is very much needed. after an oil spill do you give up on oil? there is risk in most things.
more...
iJohnHenry
Mar 24, 06:52 PM
The Vatican, and the Pope by extension, is rapidly becoming "Captain Dunsel" in the ST-TOS vernacular.
more...
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:34 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
more...
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 04:18 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
more...
Eraserhead
Mar 14, 03:53 AM
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
If you want to transport goods with electricity the main off the shelf technology to do that is trains, and to go to India, China and South East Asia from Europe you're going to need to do a deal with at least Iran, Pakistan and possibly Russia, and to go to South America (with a short plane/boat hop across the atlantic at the narrowest point) you're going to need to work with multiple countries in Africa.
Additionally if the US wants to transport goods with electricity from Asia barring some new technology they are going to need to do a deal with the Russians.
If you want to transport goods with electricity the main off the shelf technology to do that is trains, and to go to India, China and South East Asia from Europe you're going to need to do a deal with at least Iran, Pakistan and possibly Russia, and to go to South America (with a short plane/boat hop across the atlantic at the narrowest point) you're going to need to work with multiple countries in Africa.
Additionally if the US wants to transport goods with electricity from Asia barring some new technology they are going to need to do a deal with the Russians.
more...
Photics
Apr 9, 09:53 PM
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 11:31 AM
Well, lets hope that G5 will help the programmer and be less code intensive.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:22 PM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x. powermac's are going to be high end workstations for print, graphics, and media shops, 8x pci express won't cut it.
look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.
the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.
the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
more...
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
more...
spring-2011-fashion-trends-
Web advertising trends 2011
more...
Spring/Summer 2011 Color
more...
Spring 2011 Trends To Try:
Spring 2011 Fashion Trends
more...
5 Hot Shoe Trends for Spring
more...
SPRING / SUMMER 2011 BEAUTY
more...
Make Up Trends For Spring
Trends for Spring amp; Summer
more...
more...
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
more...
MacAztec
Oct 7, 08:07 PM
Unfair Test.
They are using Apples latest and greatest processor.
The P4 has 2.6GHz out now...
AMD has like 2.2GHz out...
They are using Apples latest and greatest processor.
The P4 has 2.6GHz out now...
AMD has like 2.2GHz out...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
more...
awmazz
Mar 14, 12:27 PM
This here page, fwiw (http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=8976200&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL), says the carrier RR was exposed to thirty days radiation in an hour. There are more than 700 hours in a month. You do the math.
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 10:55 AM
Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance?
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:13 AM
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
more...
shawnce
Jul 12, 11:44 AM
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
more...
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 09:49 PM
I still regard nuclear fission as the best option among fossil fuel technologies to get us over the hump until alternative energy sources can cover 100% of demand and/or nuclear fusion is ready for commercial use. I still would prefer us to phase out coal, oil, gas and trash burning plants before we shut down our nuclear reactors as they have better carbon footprints and the mining of their fuel is overall less damaging than coal strip mining. Do we need to quickly move away from Gen I and II technology and get to at least III+ technology for all of our reactors, absolutely, but exiting nuclear fission technology at least in the short to midterm seems like a poor choice to me.
more...
MacAztec
Oct 7, 08:07 PM
Unfair Test.
They are using Apples latest and greatest processor.
The P4 has 2.6GHz out now...
AMD has like 2.2GHz out...
They are using Apples latest and greatest processor.
The P4 has 2.6GHz out now...
AMD has like 2.2GHz out...
UnixMac
Oct 11, 09:36 AM
Oh well, I'm out of my league on this.... I'll defer to others..
joepunk
Mar 11, 01:16 AM
Just heard about it on CBC late night news. Terrible.
more...
Photics
Apr 9, 09:53 PM
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
more...
Luph67
Apr 9, 03:06 PM
There's a market for games with more depth that sell at higher prices, and there's a market for cheap on-the-go games that are great for downtime on the train or waiting at the airport.
Hopefully Apple and Nintendo jumps into the other's market at some point and we no longer have to have this debate.
Hopefully Apple and Nintendo jumps into the other's market at some point and we no longer have to have this debate.
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:51 AM
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment