Funkymonk
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
4God
Jul 14, 02:27 PM
Power supply at the top? Blah! :mad: I hate the power supply on the top, not that
it would keep me from purchasing a new MacPro though. ;)
it would keep me from purchasing a new MacPro though. ;)
Gelfin
Mar 27, 09:23 AM
If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
generik
Jul 12, 12:02 AM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I doubt it will be like this. While this was the trend back in the PPC days when consumers have no alternatives to make comparisons with, people can make direct comparisons now, and no way will your Macbook look remotely attractive when a PC at 70% of the price has better specs.
"It runs MacOS" just doesn't cut it to switchers, sad to say. The corollary to that is "PCs come with Windows Vista".
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I doubt it will be like this. While this was the trend back in the PPC days when consumers have no alternatives to make comparisons with, people can make direct comparisons now, and no way will your Macbook look remotely attractive when a PC at 70% of the price has better specs.
"It runs MacOS" just doesn't cut it to switchers, sad to say. The corollary to that is "PCs come with Windows Vista".
miles01110
May 2, 09:11 AM
lol
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:28 AM
Also...
I like the idea of being able to take 3D pictures with the Nintendo 3DS, but that's not worth $250 to me... not at such low resolutions and not when I use my iPhone 4 so much. I like Nintendo, but I don't think they're making good decisions to protect their future. Why don't they work more with independent developers? Why didn't they build their own app store for independent developers? Why not team up with Apple, like Sony sorta is doing with Android?
Nintendo did really well during the last few years. But now, Apple is becoming a threat. If you acknowledge the threat to Nintendo or not, that's irrelevant. Why? It's because Nintendo acknowledges the threat.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nintendo-execs-admit-apple-is-the-enemy-of-the-future-2010-5
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
I like the idea of being able to take 3D pictures with the Nintendo 3DS, but that's not worth $250 to me... not at such low resolutions and not when I use my iPhone 4 so much. I like Nintendo, but I don't think they're making good decisions to protect their future. Why don't they work more with independent developers? Why didn't they build their own app store for independent developers? Why not team up with Apple, like Sony sorta is doing with Android?
Nintendo did really well during the last few years. But now, Apple is becoming a threat. If you acknowledge the threat to Nintendo or not, that's irrelevant. Why? It's because Nintendo acknowledges the threat.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nintendo-execs-admit-apple-is-the-enemy-of-the-future-2010-5
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
res1233
May 2, 04:21 PM
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
mi5moav
Sep 20, 08:29 AM
I have a feeling that Apple and Disney are going to partner up on this ITV and somehow integrate MovieBeam into it. I am sure there are already plans in the work. Disney has cut the price on this great technology and this is one piece of technology I wouldn't give up. So, much better then running to the store and the definition of the movies are great. For $52 bucks you get you own video Store. Decent prices on rentals. A lot better then $299 no way will I get iTV but for $199 with moviebeam built in it's possible.
logandzwon
May 2, 10:37 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
davelanger
Apr 10, 11:45 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
skunk
Apr 24, 03:25 PM
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin. I think you'll have to try again here: I have no idea what you are saying.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:30 PM
I don't mind that you have a different opinion, you just represent that opinion badly.
So should someone else represent my opinion for me?
I'm having a hard time understanding how I can represent my own personal opinion poorly.
So should someone else represent my opinion for me?
I'm having a hard time understanding how I can represent my own personal opinion poorly.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 12:03 PM
Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
GGJstudios
May 3, 05:30 PM
You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Tulse
Mar 19, 01:09 PM
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven.
As I recall, the limit is on how many times you can burn a specific playlist. You can burn a song an unlimited number of times. This is a big difference.
manu chao said:If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
This is an excellent analogy, manu chao. Everybody knows that it is wrong to sneak into a movie theatre, but for some reason people think it is OK to copy music illegally. It is just bizarre.
It seems to me that the issue is pretty darned simple -- as a potential user of iTMS you know what the rules are. If you don't want to abide by the rules, don't use the service. Any talk of "it's actually helping Apple" or "it's my music to do with as I want" is just self-justifying bull. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's really that simple.
As I recall, the limit is on how many times you can burn a specific playlist. You can burn a song an unlimited number of times. This is a big difference.
manu chao said:If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
This is an excellent analogy, manu chao. Everybody knows that it is wrong to sneak into a movie theatre, but for some reason people think it is OK to copy music illegally. It is just bizarre.
It seems to me that the issue is pretty darned simple -- as a potential user of iTMS you know what the rules are. If you don't want to abide by the rules, don't use the service. Any talk of "it's actually helping Apple" or "it's my music to do with as I want" is just self-justifying bull. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's really that simple.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:04 AM
Additional tethering charge on an unlimited data plan: justified.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
sgosine
May 5, 11:04 AM
In my opinion AT&T is the worst service in the universe; Here in Boulder Colorado You have to carry 2 phones! my iphone through at&t and the one I actually can make calls on.:mad:
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
Dooger
Apr 28, 08:14 AM
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
longstech
Nov 12, 02:09 PM
Now I drop calls and cannot connect to incoming calls about 60% of the time on my iphone 4...
And when I call my wife on her 3GS its like 90% of the time failing first try.
I live 50 yards from a brand new tower. Seems when I go to other parts of Henderson/Vegas it is not as bad...
And when I call my wife on her 3GS its like 90% of the time failing first try.
I live 50 yards from a brand new tower. Seems when I go to other parts of Henderson/Vegas it is not as bad...
SPUY767
Mar 19, 08:31 PM
You are one of the few moral and sane individuals who I see on this server. People who see beyond this robin hood mentality that permeates the computer world like a plague. People don't seem to feel as though they have done anything wrong when they have stolen something that is not physical.
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
AdrianK
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
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?
Digitalclips
Apr 28, 08:32 AM
Now re tabulate by profitability.
0 comments:
Post a Comment