xiaoyu04
Oct 25, 10:21 PM
wow, that was a fast announcement? if i remember correctly the clovertons come out mid nov don't they?
deannnnn
May 5, 05:47 PM
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
PS. I don't doubt what you're saying, by the way. My phone works great when I'm in Miami. There are just very localized issues, and if you're in one of the problem areas, it can be very frustrating.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
PS. I don't doubt what you're saying, by the way. My phone works great when I'm in Miami. There are just very localized issues, and if you're in one of the problem areas, it can be very frustrating.
Doctor Q
Mar 20, 06:21 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Scarlet Fever
Jul 12, 01:26 AM
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
Small White Car
May 5, 10:23 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
auero
Mar 18, 07:59 AM
I don't understand the ranting of why AT&T charges more to tether. Sprint and Verizon do it too? Just because your jailbreak method doesn't work anymore shouldn't make you mad. The system caught up to you. Yes it's stupid to pay for extra data but that's just how it is and people are still going to pay for it so complaining won't do anything.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
iliketyla
Apr 21, 07:15 PM
Unfortunately we have a whole heap of 'computer experts' on this forum who attach 'virus' onto anything they want whilst ignoring there is a huge difference between a malware and a virus.
I know I'm going to get flamed, but in the 7 or 8 years before I was bought a Macintosh computer, I never once encountered a virus while using Windows machines. Malware, yes. But ever since I gained even the most basic knowledge of how to use a computer competently, I have zero problems anymore.
I can seamlessly go from Windows to Macintosh with no problems.
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
I know I'm going to get flamed, but in the 7 or 8 years before I was bought a Macintosh computer, I never once encountered a virus while using Windows machines. Malware, yes. But ever since I gained even the most basic knowledge of how to use a computer competently, I have zero problems anymore.
I can seamlessly go from Windows to Macintosh with no problems.
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 10:47 AM
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 12:25 PM
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
blumpy
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Snowy_River
Mar 19, 01:30 AM
...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
the vj
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
A few months ago I deleted and started to reject all the people I knew from high school in my Facebook, well, the ones that after almost 20 years came to me to add me as a friend but they were the ones that make my life a living hell and used me and took advantaged and then they turned their back on me.
You know what... get lost!
You know what... get lost!
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
milo
Jul 13, 08:51 AM
Lame poll choices.
Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.
Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.
Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.
Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.
dukebound85
Apr 24, 01:50 PM
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
AdrianK
Apr 6, 11:19 AM
This. Though there are exceptions. As iCole suggests taking a screenshot out of the box is a bit counter-intuitive when the keyboards lack a "print screen" button. :p However you can do that using Preview or Grab.
Mac:
cmd-shft-3 to get a screen shot *instantly* on your desktop
Windows:
Opening snipping tool
switching to full screen mode
click
choosing a file name
quit the app
Mac:
cmd-shft-3 to get a screen shot *instantly* on your desktop
Windows:
Opening snipping tool
switching to full screen mode
click
choosing a file name
quit the app
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:12 AM
I liked reading your post. I pretty much agree with you wrote. I think Nintendo is scared about the falling price of software. That's where their money comes from. For almost three decades, Nintendo has been making a lot of money by releasing consoles to sell their software at a premium.
An excellent example... is Urban Champion on Wiiware really worth $5?
That's madness! A title like that would get crushed on the iTunes App Store.
Although... I think iOS is geared more towards casual games, because that's easier to create on the system. Yet, I'm investing time and money in seeing if there is a market for "hardcore" games. I think there is. That's why I'm building BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports).
Apple is one step away from crushing Nintendo... that's adding an App Store to the Apple TV.
This hardcore vs. casual debate misses the main point. Nintendo was seen as the more casual of the big three console makers. Yet, Nintendo dominated the first few years of this generation's console war. If Apple enters this arena, it's big trouble for Nintendo... and the other console makers.
Heh, but as a developer, it's really cool for me. Apple has built something amazing here. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo... they could have made it easier for independent developers, but they didn't. Apple is now in a great position to dramatically change the way the industry works � and I think it's for the better.
I wandered into Best Buy last Christmas season and I saw the game of life in 3D on the XBOX. I thought it was a great way to modernize a classic game. I was getting ready to buy the XBOX 360. But then, lots of great iOS games started going on sale for 99� each. I bought nine... NINE NEW GAMES for less than $10.
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
Dude, Nintendo is not about to be crushed by Apple. That suggest a REAL lack of understanding about any market, let alone this one and this player.
Nintendo does need to adapt, but it could do that in a number of ways that would see it remain successful and a core contributor. I happen to believe their core competence is in developing games, and they would be well served on iOS.
I'm sorry, I don't judge the quality of a game by how cheap it is. EVEN IF YOU PUT IT IN CAPS.
An excellent example... is Urban Champion on Wiiware really worth $5?
That's madness! A title like that would get crushed on the iTunes App Store.
Although... I think iOS is geared more towards casual games, because that's easier to create on the system. Yet, I'm investing time and money in seeing if there is a market for "hardcore" games. I think there is. That's why I'm building BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports).
Apple is one step away from crushing Nintendo... that's adding an App Store to the Apple TV.
This hardcore vs. casual debate misses the main point. Nintendo was seen as the more casual of the big three console makers. Yet, Nintendo dominated the first few years of this generation's console war. If Apple enters this arena, it's big trouble for Nintendo... and the other console makers.
Heh, but as a developer, it's really cool for me. Apple has built something amazing here. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo... they could have made it easier for independent developers, but they didn't. Apple is now in a great position to dramatically change the way the industry works � and I think it's for the better.
I wandered into Best Buy last Christmas season and I saw the game of life in 3D on the XBOX. I thought it was a great way to modernize a classic game. I was getting ready to buy the XBOX 360. But then, lots of great iOS games started going on sale for 99� each. I bought nine... NINE NEW GAMES for less than $10.
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
Dude, Nintendo is not about to be crushed by Apple. That suggest a REAL lack of understanding about any market, let alone this one and this player.
Nintendo does need to adapt, but it could do that in a number of ways that would see it remain successful and a core contributor. I happen to believe their core competence is in developing games, and they would be well served on iOS.
I'm sorry, I don't judge the quality of a game by how cheap it is. EVEN IF YOU PUT IT IN CAPS.
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.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:18 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
nick9191
Apr 22, 11:44 PM
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
darkplanets
Mar 12, 11:18 PM
It won't be an issue. Please refer to my previous post in this thread.
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
No comments:
Post a Comment