Jaymes
Mar 28, 02:47 PM
Because not being eligible for an award ranks right up there with freedom of speech. :rolleyes:
I think you're missing the point that it was Apple, not Jaymes, who invoked 1984 first. Now, if you want to claim that forcing developers who want to be eligible for one of the most prestigious awards to post their apps to the Mac App store is not Orwellian, then you have every right to say such. I, and I am sure many other application developers, will disagree with you.
The Mac App store clearly demonstrates Apple's intent to drive the Mac towards as closed of a system as possible, not just for the OS, but for software as well (sort of like the iPad).
Let's also not forget that the Mac App store work great in a consumer world, not such a great idea in the enterprise and non-profit worlds where licenses tend to be owned by the employer. With the Mac App store, apps are owned by the individual. It makes business sense for Apple but not for the organization who will be purchasing.
I think you're missing the point that it was Apple, not Jaymes, who invoked 1984 first. Now, if you want to claim that forcing developers who want to be eligible for one of the most prestigious awards to post their apps to the Mac App store is not Orwellian, then you have every right to say such. I, and I am sure many other application developers, will disagree with you.
The Mac App store clearly demonstrates Apple's intent to drive the Mac towards as closed of a system as possible, not just for the OS, but for software as well (sort of like the iPad).
Let's also not forget that the Mac App store work great in a consumer world, not such a great idea in the enterprise and non-profit worlds where licenses tend to be owned by the employer. With the Mac App store, apps are owned by the individual. It makes business sense for Apple but not for the organization who will be purchasing.
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:37 AM
Isn't the next MBP just going to be a Gen 1 C2D?Rev. B Intel but Rev. A Core 2 Duo
Confusing isn't it?
Confusing isn't it?
tny
Nov 16, 04:30 PM
uk store down too.. my moneys on maintenence
Nope. Wouldn't put the store down at 5:30 pm on a Thursday (EST) for maintenance. My money is on either a major failure (unlikely) or a PRODUCT(RED) MacBook.
EDIT:
Or, come to think of it, Quad Core Mac Pros.
Nope. Wouldn't put the store down at 5:30 pm on a Thursday (EST) for maintenance. My money is on either a major failure (unlikely) or a PRODUCT(RED) MacBook.
EDIT:
Or, come to think of it, Quad Core Mac Pros.
KnightWRX
Mar 13, 11:25 AM
I think there will be a change in computing
So you mean computing won't be "Input, Process, Output, Storage" but something else ?
No, there will be no change in computing. It's already general and basic enough to cover all the bases.
and tablets are the future of it. I do think servers/ power machines will remain, but I can see them becoming specialised (such as in power stations etc). I can see Linux filling that whole perfectly. I do feel that tablets/ touch based computers are the future, but I think they need voice recognition software to truly come into play for text input. If the iPad had a killer voice recognition software, then MS Word for iPad might truly become a game changer. As good as any touchscreen is, typing 2,000 words on a touchscreen would be a bit of a push.
You failed to see any of my points. Tablets are not some kind of "future change to computers!", tablets are very much computing devices utilizing the same concepts and ideas that have been the very core of the industry for the last 50 years.
Touch based computer ? It's still input and input is just that, input. It doesn't matter whether is touch, keyboards, mice, network, voice, biometrics. Input is input.
A lot of you people want to see a massive change where frankly there isn't any. A new type of device doesn't somehow make everything different. It can just be a "new type of device", something the computer industry of the last 50 years has seen plenty of.
Read my post again carefully, you'll see that I already addressed all your points. Don't just respond to me without even understanding what I'm talking about and at least trying to counteract my points if you're going to try to contradict me.
So you mean computing won't be "Input, Process, Output, Storage" but something else ?
No, there will be no change in computing. It's already general and basic enough to cover all the bases.
and tablets are the future of it. I do think servers/ power machines will remain, but I can see them becoming specialised (such as in power stations etc). I can see Linux filling that whole perfectly. I do feel that tablets/ touch based computers are the future, but I think they need voice recognition software to truly come into play for text input. If the iPad had a killer voice recognition software, then MS Word for iPad might truly become a game changer. As good as any touchscreen is, typing 2,000 words on a touchscreen would be a bit of a push.
You failed to see any of my points. Tablets are not some kind of "future change to computers!", tablets are very much computing devices utilizing the same concepts and ideas that have been the very core of the industry for the last 50 years.
Touch based computer ? It's still input and input is just that, input. It doesn't matter whether is touch, keyboards, mice, network, voice, biometrics. Input is input.
A lot of you people want to see a massive change where frankly there isn't any. A new type of device doesn't somehow make everything different. It can just be a "new type of device", something the computer industry of the last 50 years has seen plenty of.
Read my post again carefully, you'll see that I already addressed all your points. Don't just respond to me without even understanding what I'm talking about and at least trying to counteract my points if you're going to try to contradict me.
Music-Man
Jan 9, 03:22 PM
Come on.
I dont think I can hold out much longer.
I'll give Apple til 8.30 Aussie time. ie another 10 mins.
I dont think I can hold out much longer.
I'll give Apple til 8.30 Aussie time. ie another 10 mins.
pgw3
Aug 1, 04:27 PM
I don't FEEL ignorant and stupid. Maybe that's because I took the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the limitations imposed on me by iTunes/iPod before I BOUGHT in. And maybe because I understand that what I am BUYING is a DIGITAL DATA FILE that must be interpreted by a certain APPLICATION to become music, and that this was EXPLAINED to me before I BOUGHT. That I don't OWN the MUSIC, and that there are LIMITATIONS to what I can do with it. ( And if you think I'm wrong on that last point, let a copyright holder catch you using their music for commmercial gain. Write back to us and describe the world of hurt that descends on you)!
The fact of the matter is that reasonable DRM's protect the artists who are the source of the music. And Apples DRM is one the most reasonable in the industry, both protecting the artist, and allowing fair use by the customer.
The problem is that the license says that the limitations can change at any time, so one doesn't really know what one buys, even if one has read the license - which I'm sure most people has not. I don't believe that the complaint is first and foremost about the DRM (which one may have opinions about exactly how it is implemented and shared but most anyway recognises it as a necessary evil) but rather what is summarised in these two sentences: "it is unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must give consent to is regulated by English law. That iTunes disclaims all liability for possible damage the software may cause and that it may alter the rights to the music". I think most of us agree that it is not reasonable that that which we buy can destroy anything on our computer and that they can e.g. suddenly just allow me to play a song just five times. And even though we all trust and like Apple these sort of licences are getting sillier and sillier (and it is certainlly not just Apple, it is basically the whole industry) and I think it is really good that someone who has the time and knowledge to fight it takes a stand against it, even though I believe shutting down the store may be overkill but I'm sure it won't come to that.
Cheers,
Peter
The fact of the matter is that reasonable DRM's protect the artists who are the source of the music. And Apples DRM is one the most reasonable in the industry, both protecting the artist, and allowing fair use by the customer.
The problem is that the license says that the limitations can change at any time, so one doesn't really know what one buys, even if one has read the license - which I'm sure most people has not. I don't believe that the complaint is first and foremost about the DRM (which one may have opinions about exactly how it is implemented and shared but most anyway recognises it as a necessary evil) but rather what is summarised in these two sentences: "it is unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must give consent to is regulated by English law. That iTunes disclaims all liability for possible damage the software may cause and that it may alter the rights to the music". I think most of us agree that it is not reasonable that that which we buy can destroy anything on our computer and that they can e.g. suddenly just allow me to play a song just five times. And even though we all trust and like Apple these sort of licences are getting sillier and sillier (and it is certainlly not just Apple, it is basically the whole industry) and I think it is really good that someone who has the time and knowledge to fight it takes a stand against it, even though I believe shutting down the store may be overkill but I'm sure it won't come to that.
Cheers,
Peter
SuperCachetes
Apr 17, 12:30 PM
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
Treating people equally isn't mutually exclusive of acknowledging what makes us unique. You seem incapable of either. Good luck with that, guy.
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
Treating people equally isn't mutually exclusive of acknowledging what makes us unique. You seem incapable of either. Good luck with that, guy.
Surely
Apr 5, 05:55 PM
Dear macrumors newbie and all the others who simply don't get this,
I can only assume none of you have either a creative or entrepreneurial gene in your bodies. Even if all you hope to be is moderately successful at communicating , an appreciation of the work of ad agencies would be useful.
I designed my first ad when I was 19. It was a poster for a charity disco. We made money. Unconsciously I had distilled all the information I needed from all the ads I'd seen up to that point, and made something that worked. It was never as easy ever again.
If you ever want to be really successful and maybe even wealthy, then this app is vital. All the current iAds in one place - no searching needed. For goodness sake use your imaginations, please.
Yeah, I get it: Apple's iAd venture is doing really badly so they created this app to try to drum up some new business.
This app is vital if I want to be successful or wealthy? Huh?:confused:
I can only assume none of you have either a creative or entrepreneurial gene in your bodies. Even if all you hope to be is moderately successful at communicating , an appreciation of the work of ad agencies would be useful.
I designed my first ad when I was 19. It was a poster for a charity disco. We made money. Unconsciously I had distilled all the information I needed from all the ads I'd seen up to that point, and made something that worked. It was never as easy ever again.
If you ever want to be really successful and maybe even wealthy, then this app is vital. All the current iAds in one place - no searching needed. For goodness sake use your imaginations, please.
Yeah, I get it: Apple's iAd venture is doing really badly so they created this app to try to drum up some new business.
This app is vital if I want to be successful or wealthy? Huh?:confused:
Adidas Addict
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
I don't understand people who think the next iPhone should be called 4S (and some think 4GS, wth?)
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
BHP41
Dec 13, 08:23 PM
A verizon phone without that ugly ass logo on the front and back. No way!!! LOL. The next iPhone will have hsdpa+ not CDMA. Does verizon need the iPhone. Yes. Will they get it next year. No. To all those that say "I can't wait because I "need" better service". Sit down please. If you "needed" better service you'd be with verizon,sprint or tmobile already. It funny how people will buy the iPhone, comlaon about service then start threads like this. News flash.... A PHONE IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE NETWORK IT IS CONECTED TO. In my case, it doesn't matter. I don't live in the hills so I have great service from all the wireless providers. I choose the iPhone 4 as my main device for work and play even though I have many BB's,a nexus 1, and a incredible. Verizon is stuck so far up motorolas,htc,and samsungs ass that they can't handle apple. Their too busy releasing and stocking a new android every 3 weeks.
Anuba
Jan 12, 08:00 PM
IMO, I think the general religion is "smug, matronizing, hollier-than-thou, etc", and it breaks down into sub-regions called Apple, Microsoft, Coke, Pepsi, etc, each with their own church. I'm not a fan of the Apple people that are like that, nor am I a fan of the Microsoft people who act that way either.
I hear ya, but... Microsoft devotees? Those exist? Statistically, if I've bumped into 100 bona fide Macdroids I should've encountered about 3200 Microsofties. The only Microsoft addict I can think of at the moment is Paul Thurrott over at SuperSite for Windows, but he always struck me as more of a, well, Paul Thurrott fan who likes to talk about Paul Thurrott and put little pictures of Paul Thurrott on his Paul Thurrott page about Windows and Paul Thurrott. Most Windows users don't seem to think about Windows at all. While this may be perceived as a lack of enthusiasm for the product, I find it quite sound. Windows is just something they use, like a sidewalk, a fork or a toilet. I like having a toilet available, really appreciate what it does for me, but it's not like I've built a shrine for it or have posters of it over my bed.
I hear ya, but... Microsoft devotees? Those exist? Statistically, if I've bumped into 100 bona fide Macdroids I should've encountered about 3200 Microsofties. The only Microsoft addict I can think of at the moment is Paul Thurrott over at SuperSite for Windows, but he always struck me as more of a, well, Paul Thurrott fan who likes to talk about Paul Thurrott and put little pictures of Paul Thurrott on his Paul Thurrott page about Windows and Paul Thurrott. Most Windows users don't seem to think about Windows at all. While this may be perceived as a lack of enthusiasm for the product, I find it quite sound. Windows is just something they use, like a sidewalk, a fork or a toilet. I like having a toilet available, really appreciate what it does for me, but it's not like I've built a shrine for it or have posters of it over my bed.
vizkiz
Apr 15, 04:10 PM
So you have a humongous hole on the side?
Yes, for the volume up/down rocker switch. If yours doesn't have the volume rocker in the same spot, I think you may have a fake.
Yes, for the volume up/down rocker switch. If yours doesn't have the volume rocker in the same spot, I think you may have a fake.
azentropy
Jan 9, 12:18 PM
What I want:
Ultra Portable MacBook: < 2.5lbs, 11.1" LCD, 10+ hours battery, a SSD option, starting at < $1500
Consumer Expandable mini-tower using DESKTOP processors, starting at <$1200.
What I predict:
That I won't be happy
:(
Ultra Portable MacBook: < 2.5lbs, 11.1" LCD, 10+ hours battery, a SSD option, starting at < $1500
Consumer Expandable mini-tower using DESKTOP processors, starting at <$1200.
What I predict:
That I won't be happy
:(
NT1440
Apr 16, 06:19 PM
The angled back is very ZuneHD ish......
jephrey
Oct 12, 09:32 AM
iBeard, you're assuming that the only thing a larger screen is good for is movies/tv. With a 4" screen on the pod, you have a larger viewing area for more than movies/tv. You have it for games, pictures, chat(when available), text, better view of album artwork, and so on. It may not be for you because you may only use your pod for music, but you gotta admit there's a huge market for it.
J
J
fortetfn
Aug 16, 11:32 AM
I received a 2A62XXX Display last week with a May production date. No idea whether it is an old or a new one. However, I did notice a few dead pixels last night after watching a movies. (The movie credits came with a black background. Great for dead pixel discovery!)
By just looking at it, I noticed at least 4 dead pixels, some appeared stronger than others. They are all on the left half of the screen. Is this considered an acceptable or normal number of dead pixels? I am tempted to return it while I can. Any suggestions?
Yes, you should definitely return it and get a new one. I can never accept any dead pixels. It is annoying to see them there. Call Apple and tell them that.
By just looking at it, I noticed at least 4 dead pixels, some appeared stronger than others. They are all on the left half of the screen. Is this considered an acceptable or normal number of dead pixels? I am tempted to return it while I can. Any suggestions?
Yes, you should definitely return it and get a new one. I can never accept any dead pixels. It is annoying to see them there. Call Apple and tell them that.
ten-oak-druid
May 2, 12:46 PM
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
You need to indicate where you fit in NT, me, 95, 98 and any other versions that might exist. You haven't included all the versions.
Look through the thread. There are other various arguments about how the versions are grouped.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
You need to indicate where you fit in NT, me, 95, 98 and any other versions that might exist. You haven't included all the versions.
Look through the thread. There are other various arguments about how the versions are grouped.
creator2456
Apr 10, 12:36 AM
Can you report your speeds with that whenever you get it running?
I shall try to remember, but won't have it until Wed., won't have connection until the Monday after.
I shall try to remember, but won't have it until Wed., won't have connection until the Monday after.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
inket
Apr 13, 03:06 PM
CMD+K and entering the SMB sharing name fixed it I presume ?
Full of Win
Mar 24, 06:31 PM
http://futrellsoftware.com/pbeta.jpg
I hate intrude in the birthday party, but if OS X 10.0 can have indicators to which process in open and running in the background (the black triangles in the screen shot) in 2000, then why can't iOS in 2011? :rolleyes:
I hate intrude in the birthday party, but if OS X 10.0 can have indicators to which process in open and running in the background (the black triangles in the screen shot) in 2000, then why can't iOS in 2011? :rolleyes:
the Rebel
May 3, 11:49 PM
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
Actually, during the past 20-30 years, the #1 selling vehicle in the United States has been a pickup truck. Many of those years the #2 or #3 selling vehicle has also been a pickup truck.
Trucks may not be as popular in the cities, but the majority of the car owners in this country do not live in the cities.
Actually, during the past 20-30 years, the #1 selling vehicle in the United States has been a pickup truck. Many of those years the #2 or #3 selling vehicle has also been a pickup truck.
Trucks may not be as popular in the cities, but the majority of the car owners in this country do not live in the cities.
maflynn
Apr 11, 12:28 PM
It'll be really cool if they release a free beta for a year or so like they did with W7. The W7 beta was very stable and knocked off a nice chunk of money from a new build (for a while anyway)
I'm hoping that will be the case, and I'm thinking that will occur as they want to drum up some excitement for win8.
I'm hoping that will be the case, and I'm thinking that will occur as they want to drum up some excitement for win8.
chicagdan
Nov 16, 12:35 PM
Here we go folks.
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
Not only are they always wrong, their rumors don't even make sense. AMD doesn't have a competitive notebook CPU and can't deliver in the scale Apple needs. These guys can't even fabricate a decent lie.
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
Not only are they always wrong, their rumors don't even make sense. AMD doesn't have a competitive notebook CPU and can't deliver in the scale Apple needs. These guys can't even fabricate a decent lie.
