Calidude
Apr 16, 04:23 PM
I can't help but feel that your posts come from way inside the closet. Why do gay people frighten you so?
It is not gay people that people should be afraid of. It's people who promote homosexuality through media, education, culture, and government that people should be afraid of.
What if you don't know any role models (e.g. you are poor?)
Last time I checked, it didn't take material wealth to have good character or to be exposed to it.
It is not gay people that people should be afraid of. It's people who promote homosexuality through media, education, culture, and government that people should be afraid of.
What if you don't know any role models (e.g. you are poor?)
Last time I checked, it didn't take material wealth to have good character or to be exposed to it.
roadbloc
Mar 6, 03:14 PM
No they don't. They just attempt to copy (often badly), then license universally and flood the market with a lot junk that includes a ton of different models at very low price points.
The scary thing is is that you actually believe this nonsense.
The scary thing is is that you actually believe this nonsense.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 29, 10:34 PM
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
megfilmworks
Jan 10, 06:41 PM
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art -
Huh?? I think your first priority should be a lesson in how to write.
Huh?? I think your first priority should be a lesson in how to write.
robbieduncan
Apr 21, 11:48 AM
Apathy would be not clicking anything.
True apathy would be not caring if you've clicked anything or not.
True apathy would be not caring if you've clicked anything or not.
davepoint
Aug 14, 01:52 AM
You're telling me they haven't recouped costs for designing the things yet? Or that we should always have to pay..
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 10, 03:29 PM
Fair question - mostly for the flexibility of watching multiple channels and/or playing PS3 while watching multiple channels.
Plus - given the size of the room it would be difficult to achieve an ideal viewing distance for anything bigger than 50".
Wow, I'm the complete opposite of this haha. 5 years ago I donated my TV and never looked back :)
Plus - given the size of the room it would be difficult to achieve an ideal viewing distance for anything bigger than 50".
Wow, I'm the complete opposite of this haha. 5 years ago I donated my TV and never looked back :)
mdriftmeyer
Apr 29, 07:36 PM
They won't make Lion "uninstallable" on it. But it might be "unbearable" for all but the most casual of users. ;)
On a side note, I've noticed there's now a "Show downloads" button to the left of the Search Field:
Image (http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=283487&stc=1&d=1304105242)
You mean to the right of the search field, and when Lion is released w/o dbg libs running the Ram requirements and performance will improve smoothly for the Airs to run just fine.
On a side note, I've noticed there's now a "Show downloads" button to the left of the Search Field:
Image (http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=283487&stc=1&d=1304105242)
You mean to the right of the search field, and when Lion is released w/o dbg libs running the Ram requirements and performance will improve smoothly for the Airs to run just fine.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
freeny
Oct 11, 08:09 AM
And the saga continues....
Apples new codec reading giving the ipod twice the play time on a battery charge does give a little backing to the story....
just release the damn thing already.
Apples new codec reading giving the ipod twice the play time on a battery charge does give a little backing to the story....
just release the damn thing already.
zoozx
Jan 5, 05:09 PM
Any bets that James Brown gets used in the apple event in some way.
Talk about thinking different.
The guy made music out of a word like popcorn.
RIP JB.......:cool:
Talk about thinking different.
The guy made music out of a word like popcorn.
RIP JB.......:cool:
trunten
Apr 5, 03:03 PM
Next up, iAd the movie!
R.Perez
Apr 26, 12:07 AM
There aren't exactly good public restroom options for a transgendered person. I think when it comes to restrooms, you probably should pick the door that reflects the body parts as you have them, not how you want them. Wouldn't these same girls be widely considered justified if this was some skeevy guy in a trench coat?
Does anyone know if there is an affirmative duty for non-security employees to intervene in fistacuffs.
(edit) I can't watch the video, but I'll take your word that no one called the police. If so, that may subject the entity to liability for failure to minimally protect customers. The yelling may be despicable, but that won't be enough to subject McDonalds to liability.
I usually like your posts on here but this one is really coming off as transphobic and frankly makes me really sad to read.
Does anyone know if there is an affirmative duty for non-security employees to intervene in fistacuffs.
(edit) I can't watch the video, but I'll take your word that no one called the police. If so, that may subject the entity to liability for failure to minimally protect customers. The yelling may be despicable, but that won't be enough to subject McDonalds to liability.
I usually like your posts on here but this one is really coming off as transphobic and frankly makes me really sad to read.
puckhead193
Mar 18, 07:05 PM
i used to hate iphone owners (because i wanted one) but now that I have the perfect phone i'm happy and don't care what people say.
aafuss1
Sep 12, 02:04 AM
New accessories:-
Tube "skins" for the 5G iPod, with a lanyard-similar price to nano's tubes
Lanyard headphones for 5G/6th gen
IR receiver, ready for Leopard-customizable programming,like a universal remote. Same remote as iMac's
Sports kit/travel for 6th Gen
User video sharing features-upload to YouTube or a new iTMS section for used created, original vodcasts/videos
BBC TV shows on the UK store-perhaps Seven or Ten (Nine Network is MS centric), here in Australia
iPod shuffle discontinued entirely
Tube "skins" for the 5G iPod, with a lanyard-similar price to nano's tubes
Lanyard headphones for 5G/6th gen
IR receiver, ready for Leopard-customizable programming,like a universal remote. Same remote as iMac's
Sports kit/travel for 6th Gen
User video sharing features-upload to YouTube or a new iTMS section for used created, original vodcasts/videos
BBC TV shows on the UK store-perhaps Seven or Ten (Nine Network is MS centric), here in Australia
iPod shuffle discontinued entirely
Pyrix
Jan 9, 05:17 PM
All I get is
'Due to exceptional demand, your request could not be completed at this time.
Please try again at a later time.'
'Due to exceptional demand, your request could not be completed at this time.
Please try again at a later time.'
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
quagmire
Aug 7, 02:29 PM
I am personally hoping for a diesel Volt one day as well. Diesel engines are far better suited then gas engines when it comes to a series hybrid like the Volt.
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 04:33 PM
The point is HE KNEW he didn't have all the money and yet let him walk out with the ipad..
Nowhere in the thread does the OP say that the cashier knew that he hadn't collected enough money. On the other hand, the OP is quite clear that he knew that he hadn't paid enough.
And what about if BB over charged his card $300 and didn't say anything about it... That happens all the time and customers don't catch it.... Maybe not that dollar amount but it still happens... I wonder how many BB throw in the warranty and not telling the customer they added it? A lot of people don't check their receipt.. I don't feel sorry for bestbuy or the kid..
It was his problem....
James
Irrelevant. If Best Buy over charges someone they're just as wrong as the guy who didn't pay enough. I'm not sure how it works where you are, but from where I sit two wrongs don't make a right.
Nowhere in the thread does the OP say that the cashier knew that he hadn't collected enough money. On the other hand, the OP is quite clear that he knew that he hadn't paid enough.
And what about if BB over charged his card $300 and didn't say anything about it... That happens all the time and customers don't catch it.... Maybe not that dollar amount but it still happens... I wonder how many BB throw in the warranty and not telling the customer they added it? A lot of people don't check their receipt.. I don't feel sorry for bestbuy or the kid..
It was his problem....
James
Irrelevant. If Best Buy over charges someone they're just as wrong as the guy who didn't pay enough. I'm not sure how it works where you are, but from where I sit two wrongs don't make a right.
John Purple
Jan 15, 04:24 PM
One thing I think people need to keep in mind about the MB Air... it's NOT a replacement laptop or a replacement workstation!
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
MBA is ok for whoever wants one. It's nice, light etc. etc.
Nevertheless it does not help those of us who were hoping for all that other stuff that is overdue.
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
MBA is ok for whoever wants one. It's nice, light etc. etc.
Nevertheless it does not help those of us who were hoping for all that other stuff that is overdue.
Popeye206
May 4, 07:51 AM
There is a big difference between paying more for service that costs the carriers more and paying for a service/feature that doesn't cost the carriers everything.
America is HUGE compared to Hong Kong to Europe so it costs the carriers far more to get coverage.
What people seem to not get is that the "greedy carriers" are always under pressure to expand. Give better coverage. Faster connections like 4G and so forth. And they need to do this in a market where competition keeps driving the revenue down. So, as consumers, we want them to spend more and make less to give us reliable, fast service everywhere we go. On top of this, technologies on the internet are quickly eating away at their market. So many ways to communicate now it's eating away at their bottom line.
So, the U.S.carriers are doing everything they can to get what they can to help support this. They are a business, and need to make money for their shareholders and so they can stay alive.
Not saying I think it's right that they charge more for tethering, but it is what it is. They've been doing it for years and they're soaking it. But it does not mean it should not change.
America is HUGE compared to Hong Kong to Europe so it costs the carriers far more to get coverage.
What people seem to not get is that the "greedy carriers" are always under pressure to expand. Give better coverage. Faster connections like 4G and so forth. And they need to do this in a market where competition keeps driving the revenue down. So, as consumers, we want them to spend more and make less to give us reliable, fast service everywhere we go. On top of this, technologies on the internet are quickly eating away at their market. So many ways to communicate now it's eating away at their bottom line.
So, the U.S.carriers are doing everything they can to get what they can to help support this. They are a business, and need to make money for their shareholders and so they can stay alive.
Not saying I think it's right that they charge more for tethering, but it is what it is. They've been doing it for years and they're soaking it. But it does not mean it should not change.
EricNau
Jan 12, 08:07 PM
The scheduled release for Europe is the 4th quarter of 2007 (and 2008 for Asia).
miles01110
Apr 21, 02:35 PM
some stuff that I don't know anything about. So then I like to look at the votes and see if this is something that is good or bad for Apple.
The voting on the front page has nothing to do with what's good for Apple. Sorry you've been deceived into thinking as much for so long, though.
The voting on the front page has nothing to do with what's good for Apple. Sorry you've been deceived into thinking as much for so long, though.
kuebby
Apr 6, 12:28 PM
Well I'm glad it's free, I'd hate to pay $.99 to look at ads.
0 comments:
Post a Comment