jk8311
Sep 12, 03:47 PM
The other possible reason for the sneak-peak from Apple is that analysts on wall street have been talking up a storm about a video-capable Airport Express. This was unusual for the event - I've never seen analysts buy into so many of the obviously fake rumors. This morning an analyst even used the word "TubePort" to describe the potential release. He totally lost any credibility the moment he did that. Anyway - Wall Street's expectations were high and I think Steve Jobs had to give in a little bit in order to keep stock holders happy. Also, if you've read the recent reviews about Amazon's new Unbox service, everything comes down to the fact that you ultimately pay the same price (if not more) for the file, wait for it to download, and are then limited to watching it on your computer or iPod.
They were expected to introduce an end-to-end solution that would allow people to download movies and play them back on a TV - unlike Amazon's Unbox service that limits viewing to the TV. So now Apple can't be grouped in the Amazon category and people will start buying movies with Apple's iTunes serivce since they know that within 3-4 months they'll have an end-to-end solution with the "iTV". Why get stuck with the Amazon service if you can't get it to the TV...
They were expected to introduce an end-to-end solution that would allow people to download movies and play them back on a TV - unlike Amazon's Unbox service that limits viewing to the TV. So now Apple can't be grouped in the Amazon category and people will start buying movies with Apple's iTunes serivce since they know that within 3-4 months they'll have an end-to-end solution with the "iTV". Why get stuck with the Amazon service if you can't get it to the TV...
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:27 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 09:22 PM
Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
Silentwave
Jul 13, 08:35 AM
and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
NT1440
Nov 6, 04:58 PM
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 10:10 AM
And, for many in that 1%, it's never going to stop until they learn to deal with it -- you can stop bullying in schools, but once you get out in the real world it becomes a much more difficult thing. You can't shield people from hate / fear / dislike or being singled out for being different. You can try to educate, you can try to get people to stop, but at the end of the day there will always be bullies and there will always be people being picked on.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
yeah you do not know what you are talking about and you can not be MORE DEAD WRONG.
I was among that 1% who was picked on. Things get better after high school and easier. Not harder. Reason why is in college you choose a major and often times that major is going to have a lot more people who are a lot like you and have similar interested. On top of that there are many more groups so to speak that you can find and line up with. Helps finding a small group of friends. Add to that fact that people generally do not pick on people as much as adults.
hit the real world you also find your own voice and own friends. You learn that HS is not a big deal and that picking on stuff not as big of a deal. Problem is making it there and it has long term effects. I still suffer with depression. I still have the mental and emotional scares of my school years that would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
But I will also state that the amount of picking on bulling I have had to put up with in the REAL WORLD (yes real job) is very little and almost always in jest. The amount that is not is so minor I can let it roll off. It never builds up and I am allowed time to recover from any I do get thrown at me. It is not day in and day out.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
yeah you do not know what you are talking about and you can not be MORE DEAD WRONG.
I was among that 1% who was picked on. Things get better after high school and easier. Not harder. Reason why is in college you choose a major and often times that major is going to have a lot more people who are a lot like you and have similar interested. On top of that there are many more groups so to speak that you can find and line up with. Helps finding a small group of friends. Add to that fact that people generally do not pick on people as much as adults.
hit the real world you also find your own voice and own friends. You learn that HS is not a big deal and that picking on stuff not as big of a deal. Problem is making it there and it has long term effects. I still suffer with depression. I still have the mental and emotional scares of my school years that would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
But I will also state that the amount of picking on bulling I have had to put up with in the REAL WORLD (yes real job) is very little and almost always in jest. The amount that is not is so minor I can let it roll off. It never builds up and I am allowed time to recover from any I do get thrown at me. It is not day in and day out.
Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
emotion
Sep 21, 01:36 PM
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
PCUser
Oct 7, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
No, no, the Athlon in the test was overclockled. That Athlon would not be sold by system manufacturers overclocked that far.
Added: The guy who ran this test even states that a dual 1GHz G4 rig is equal to 2GHz, which it isn't.
On the graphics test, he doesn't even give the Athlon and P4 the same graphics card. That's a very innacurate testing site, IMO.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
No, no, the Athlon in the test was overclockled. That Athlon would not be sold by system manufacturers overclocked that far.
Added: The guy who ran this test even states that a dual 1GHz G4 rig is equal to 2GHz, which it isn't.
On the graphics test, he doesn't even give the Athlon and P4 the same graphics card. That's a very innacurate testing site, IMO.
mcmarks
May 2, 12:19 PM
A couple of points:
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
jaguarx
Oct 30, 05:19 PM
Personally I'm waiting for this upgrade not for the 8 cores (it doesn't really help my kind of workflow much) but hopefully a base of 2 gig ram for less and a price drop, even a small one on the quad 2.66 and 3.0Ghz processors. Considering the Macbook Pros now come with 2 gig base it seems fairly likely.
That said the one thing I'd love to see would be hardware RAID support. I just don't quite trust softRAID as much as dedicated hardware and would love to do RAID1+0 with WDRaptors.
That said the one thing I'd love to see would be hardware RAID support. I just don't quite trust softRAID as much as dedicated hardware and would love to do RAID1+0 with WDRaptors.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 09:04 AM
I'm joking about Afghanistan. It's supposed to be an Isreal joke, but obviously you didn't get it. And I think it's funny! ;)
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
jayducharme
Oct 7, 05:04 PM
I have no doubt Android will surpass the iPhone in terms of user numbers. Will it surpass in quality? That remains to be seen...
Even if it does surpass in the number of users, since when has Apple been solely concerned about numbers? Quality of design really does seem to be an obsession with Apple. When the iPhone was first released, didn't Jobs state that he would be happy with 1% of the cell phone market? He's already surpassed that. Just as with their computers, Apple has never positioned itself as a mass market brand for everybody. They have opened the floodgates on the smart phone market, but I don't think they ever intended to dominate it. They simply want to provide the best experience, and that in turn brings them discriminating customers.
Even if it does surpass in the number of users, since when has Apple been solely concerned about numbers? Quality of design really does seem to be an obsession with Apple. When the iPhone was first released, didn't Jobs state that he would be happy with 1% of the cell phone market? He's already surpassed that. Just as with their computers, Apple has never positioned itself as a mass market brand for everybody. They have opened the floodgates on the smart phone market, but I don't think they ever intended to dominate it. They simply want to provide the best experience, and that in turn brings them discriminating customers.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
javajedi
Oct 10, 06:45 PM
This weekend I'm going to try to vectorize it with the Altivec and make it available for you guys. Frankly I don't know how simple or difficult this will be, but I'm going to look into it. As far as the code itself.. well.. it's very basic. Not only was it not vectorized for the G4, it wasn't vectorized for the P4. If anything the other platforms are at a software disadvatage because it's being ran under Java. The Mac OS X version is native code.
I think what we have learned from all this is that the G4 has a *REAL* problem with integer and double precision floating point. Ofcourse going to Altivec would bypass these registers and help considerably. But that just goes to show you without Altivec code you are far behind everything else.
Once again I'll see what I can do about an Altivec version, it should be very intresting indeed.
EDIT: I should also note that your 500MP didn't benifit from the extra processor, all of the math is being done in the main event loop.
I think what we have learned from all this is that the G4 has a *REAL* problem with integer and double precision floating point. Ofcourse going to Altivec would bypass these registers and help considerably. But that just goes to show you without Altivec code you are far behind everything else.
Once again I'll see what I can do about an Altivec version, it should be very intresting indeed.
EDIT: I should also note that your 500MP didn't benifit from the extra processor, all of the math is being done in the main event loop.
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:58 PM
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
mcrain
Mar 16, 12:35 PM
Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
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?
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?
Caliber26
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
So you would rather the message be:
"(Don't) Go ahead,(and) be gay. It's (not) perfectly fine."
Good god!
It is not a prison sentence!
"Embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle" ? :confused::confused:
Such as?
What an astonishingly bleak world view you have.
I rather there be NO message... whether it's to encourage or discourage this lifestyle. Go ahead and support the no-bullying stuff, but there's no need to highlight the gay agenda. There is bullying on so many levels, yet the gay thing seems to be the fad these days. It's almost as if they're trying to recruit more and more people. You'd have to be blind to not see that! If you're gay, you're gay and you will eventually come to being your own person. One doesn't need all these videos and ads giving us the "it's okay to be gay, let's do this!" pep talk. F that! And I can say so because I *am* gay.
As for your second, point: you obviously must not know very many gay people, personally. This lifestyle does not come without baggage and high-priced trade offs. Anyone who says there's no inconveniences and struggles with being gay/lesbian is full ****.
"(Don't) Go ahead,(and) be gay. It's (not) perfectly fine."
Good god!
It is not a prison sentence!
"Embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle" ? :confused::confused:
Such as?
What an astonishingly bleak world view you have.
I rather there be NO message... whether it's to encourage or discourage this lifestyle. Go ahead and support the no-bullying stuff, but there's no need to highlight the gay agenda. There is bullying on so many levels, yet the gay thing seems to be the fad these days. It's almost as if they're trying to recruit more and more people. You'd have to be blind to not see that! If you're gay, you're gay and you will eventually come to being your own person. One doesn't need all these videos and ads giving us the "it's okay to be gay, let's do this!" pep talk. F that! And I can say so because I *am* gay.
As for your second, point: you obviously must not know very many gay people, personally. This lifestyle does not come without baggage and high-priced trade offs. Anyone who says there's no inconveniences and struggles with being gay/lesbian is full ****.
damnyooneek
Mar 18, 04:26 AM
stop gouging the customer. first we pay for 'unlimited' data thats capped at 5gb then they limit it to 2gb and force you to pay more to tether.
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 10:48 AM
I'm getting the 2010 mac mini Monday (and switching to OSX) but kinda worried what my dad will say about me getting one... I guess he can't do anything about it since it's my money
iJohnHenry
Apr 22, 09:04 PM
I would suggest that most Apple users are willing to look "outside the box", and not be bound by pre-conceived "notions".
peharri
Sep 21, 03:04 PM
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
No comments:
Post a Comment