Analog Kid
Oct 26, 01:34 AM
I can't think of what I'd possibly need that kind of power for here at home, but just the extravagance of having 8 CPUs ticking away is tempting in itself.
fishmoose
Apr 20, 05:33 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:33 AM
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
skunk
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Presumably this is/was the selfsame containment building which was supposed to contain the pressurised radioactive steam which was vented from the reactor. The billowing cloud is described elsewhere as "vapour", i.e. "steam". Seems difficult to reconcile the picture with public statements about a "tiny" amount of radioactive material being released.
nebo1ss
Mar 18, 11:47 AM
Hey mates! I live in the UK and according to what I've read, what american mobile companies are charging you is a rip-off! I pay �35 per month (tax included, about $55 USD) and I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices, (macbook and iPad in my case and even my mates iPod touch from time to time when we are out). No extra fees, no hidden tricks. And my iPhone is unlocked, so I can sell it when my contract finishes and any person can use in any country or any network. COMPLAIN PEOPLE!:apple:
Every single UK carrier has a fair use policy. Check again. I agree with you on some points and prefer the UK plans but mainly because they charge different rates for those who own their phone than subsidized phones. I spend six months of the year in the UK and have a 12 month contract plan with o2 where for Sterling 15 or about $22 per month i get 600 minutes, unlimited text and 1g data plus unlimited wifi. I have an unlocked iphone that I use on Tmobile while in the US. I will be changing to "Three" as soon as contract up because they have even more attractive plans.
Every single UK carrier has a fair use policy. Check again. I agree with you on some points and prefer the UK plans but mainly because they charge different rates for those who own their phone than subsidized phones. I spend six months of the year in the UK and have a 12 month contract plan with o2 where for Sterling 15 or about $22 per month i get 600 minutes, unlimited text and 1g data plus unlimited wifi. I have an unlocked iphone that I use on Tmobile while in the US. I will be changing to "Three" as soon as contract up because they have even more attractive plans.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Man4allsea
Feb 17, 12:17 AM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
Jamieserg
Apr 13, 12:35 PM
I like the new Final Cut Interface the old one was getting tired. Plus rendering in the background will save me SO much time. A lot of my time is spent hitting cmd+r at the moment. Looks like a brilliant release but as always i'll save my final judgement for when I get my hands on it.
woodbine
Apr 13, 02:49 AM
And so is this new version $299 which is a deal compared to the $999 for FCS. Heck MSRP on FCE is $199 so with a student discount this new version is very reasonably priced. Which leads me to think this is probably a stand alone app and it does not include all the goodies of FCS like DVD Studio Pro, Compressor, etc..
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
think you may be right here, my guess is 299 for FCP X and something else for the rest...individual apps, separate prices. Personally, I'd prefer that way, I have no use for DVDSP and Motion, ST are fine for my purposes.
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
think you may be right here, my guess is 299 for FCP X and something else for the rest...individual apps, separate prices. Personally, I'd prefer that way, I have no use for DVDSP and Motion, ST are fine for my purposes.
dyler
Oct 7, 06:49 PM
Oh so now we have Android. First it was the Palm Pre that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen, then it was this or that touch screen phone that was going to kill the iPhone and that did not happen. When Android first came out with the G1 that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen and now we have more Android devices killing the iPhone, not going to happen. This is a load of crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. Android is hard to develop for and is at least two years behind Apple at the moment, how is this going to happen? This is the stupidest prediction I have ever heard from people who don't like Apple for some reason that I cannot understand, let's stop predicting which device is going to be King and just see what happens!!! The main reason I say this will not happen is that Android is only being adopted by technophiles and not everyday people, the iPhone is being adopted by apple technophiles and everyday people, it is the everyday people that decide which device is king and they will not adopt Android unless the OS is completely overhauled in a different direction, people like my 63 year old father have an Iphone now and there is no way he would ever want or use an Android based phone. Tech analysts need to think of everyday people when they predict this crap and not techies who hate Apple for some reason or another!!!
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 07:33 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
actually you are giving the finger to the rest of us... not AT&T... AT&T has a business model and just passes on additional costs to the consumer that actually pays for these things. so thanks.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
actually you are giving the finger to the rest of us... not AT&T... AT&T has a business model and just passes on additional costs to the consumer that actually pays for these things. so thanks.
pink-pony115
Aug 30, 01:01 AM
ooooooooooh no is the world coming to a end?
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
8342, 8302, 8312, 8312, 8292, 8292, 8302, 8302... averaging 8307 on AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.4GHz under Windows XP. Will test under FreeBSD and Linux later.
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
8342, 8302, 8312, 8312, 8292, 8292, 8302, 8302... averaging 8307 on AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.4GHz under Windows XP. Will test under FreeBSD and Linux later.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 08:47 PM
Alex you have made some very cogent points. I hope someone at Apple will listen.
brap
Mar 20, 09:54 PM
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
dukebound85
Mar 13, 12:31 PM
NIMBY. I'm okay with nuclear power as long as it's far far away from where I live. Of course, it's not like my town is prone to natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_earthquake) disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hugo) or anything.
Sorry to burst your buble but Charleston SC has operating reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
Note for ships marked with refit: Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635) was converted into a training platform — Moored Training Ship (MTS-635). Sam Rayburn arrived for conversion on 1 February 1986, and on 29 July 1989 the first Moored Training Ship achieved initial criticality. Modifications included special mooring arrangements including a mechanism to absorb power generated by the main propulsion shaft. Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) was converted to the second Moored Training Ship (MTS-2 / MTS-626) in 1993. The Moored Training Ship Site is located at Naval Weapons Station Charleston in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Sam Rayburn is scheduled to operate as an MTS until 2014 while undergoing shipyard availabilities at four year intervals.
Sorry to burst your buble but Charleston SC has operating reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
Note for ships marked with refit: Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635) was converted into a training platform — Moored Training Ship (MTS-635). Sam Rayburn arrived for conversion on 1 February 1986, and on 29 July 1989 the first Moored Training Ship achieved initial criticality. Modifications included special mooring arrangements including a mechanism to absorb power generated by the main propulsion shaft. Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) was converted to the second Moored Training Ship (MTS-2 / MTS-626) in 1993. The Moored Training Ship Site is located at Naval Weapons Station Charleston in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Sam Rayburn is scheduled to operate as an MTS until 2014 while undergoing shipyard availabilities at four year intervals.
Moyank24
Mar 11, 02:31 AM
As of 0730 GMT, Philippines is now under alert level 2. Its now 0830 GMT. Bracing for tsunami in the next hour.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
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?
Eidorian
Oct 26, 10:31 PM
Exactly
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.
On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.
On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?
Eraserhead
Mar 28, 02:11 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
Anonymous Freak
Oct 6, 08:03 PM
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 04:29 PM
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
And according to many Republicans, Americans are entitled to conspicuous consumption. It is as American as apple pie.
And according to many Republicans, Americans are entitled to conspicuous consumption. It is as American as apple pie.
clintob
Oct 25, 10:30 PM
Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?
If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)
I personally don't care one way or the other, but I think the major difference here is volume. The C2D was a VERY high-demand item, and Apple wanted to wait until there was sufficient supply to handle the orders they would receive. The 8-core MacPro is a pretty specialized item, so the quanitites are nowhere near as big an issue.
If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)
I personally don't care one way or the other, but I think the major difference here is volume. The C2D was a VERY high-demand item, and Apple wanted to wait until there was sufficient supply to handle the orders they would receive. The 8-core MacPro is a pretty specialized item, so the quanitites are nowhere near as big an issue.
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment