iOrlando
Apr 25, 10:26 AM
I think this is a great feature, and long overdue. It is very difficult to actually read through these comment threads once they hit 100 posts or so.
Few things:
1) I suggest have absolute tallies for the up and down votes. If one post got 300 votes on it, but the up votes offset the down votes, it would end up showing as 0 vs. a relatively obscure post that simply gets 4 up ratings would show up as 4. I want to see the comments that garnered a lot of attention/votes.
2) I also suggest coloring up arrows as green and down arrows as red. Much easier on the eye.
3) For those arguing about abuse with this feature, this site is geared for pro-Apple people, so any sense of impartiality or neutrality within the comments is non-existence. If people come to this site wanting pro-Apple stuff, they shouldn't be faced with trolls and other Apple haters.
Few things:
1) I suggest have absolute tallies for the up and down votes. If one post got 300 votes on it, but the up votes offset the down votes, it would end up showing as 0 vs. a relatively obscure post that simply gets 4 up ratings would show up as 4. I want to see the comments that garnered a lot of attention/votes.
2) I also suggest coloring up arrows as green and down arrows as red. Much easier on the eye.
3) For those arguing about abuse with this feature, this site is geared for pro-Apple people, so any sense of impartiality or neutrality within the comments is non-existence. If people come to this site wanting pro-Apple stuff, they shouldn't be faced with trolls and other Apple haters.
KingCrimson
Apr 21, 09:33 PM
That would be idiotic by Microsoft.
Why? A totally new *nix-based with Metro UI. Are you digging it?
Why? A totally new *nix-based with Metro UI. Are you digging it?
peas
Sep 28, 12:56 PM
sweet, guess i need to read between the lines more.
i just noticed on the box cover it had a monster sticker on it that said
NO UPDATES ON ACADEMIC VERSIONS so i figured this .5 update wouldnt be allowed.
thanks for the heads up
i just noticed on the box cover it had a monster sticker on it that said
NO UPDATES ON ACADEMIC VERSIONS so i figured this .5 update wouldnt be allowed.
thanks for the heads up
nycartst
Jan 15, 01:30 PM
What about an update to the Mac Book Pro that was supposed to happen? There was a lot of talk about upgrading the chipset and nothing ... lame. And we have to pay MORE for the iPhone update?! Like we did not pay enough for the phone itself. Real sad Steve ... real sad. :mad:
Anuba
Jan 12, 05:16 PM
I hope they sell it sim-free. I like the iphone, but not the phone part.
The whole '30 years is just the beggining' thing got me excited.
...and then the iphone. Thats a bit dissapointing.
Well, I'm sure the iPhone was meant as a mere appetizer for the 30th anniversary... not "Well, it took us 30 years but dagnammit, we finally managed to make a thingamabob that rings!"
^Anuba, that description of the macdroid is funny as hell!
Funny... yet disturbing. You know, I just want people to feel free to choose any computer platform they want, and lord knows we could use a few more Mac people - to, if nothing else, put more pressure on Microsoft and rock their boat, they're way too complacent. But I know a lot of people who feel alienated by Mac for two main reasons - one, the macdroids. Nobody wants to join that club. Two, Apple's infantile and insulting marketing. Slagging the competition is as low as anyone can sink. I've seen pimps with more dignified advertising methods than that. "Hello I'm a Mac / ...and I'm a PC, blah blah". Don't they realize how bad of an idea it is to brandish 97% of the world's computer users as complete idiots? They might as well say "Hello. You're an absolute moron with no brain and no taste, and I despise you utterly. Now please buy our stuff." :confused:
The whole '30 years is just the beggining' thing got me excited.
...and then the iphone. Thats a bit dissapointing.
Well, I'm sure the iPhone was meant as a mere appetizer for the 30th anniversary... not "Well, it took us 30 years but dagnammit, we finally managed to make a thingamabob that rings!"
^Anuba, that description of the macdroid is funny as hell!
Funny... yet disturbing. You know, I just want people to feel free to choose any computer platform they want, and lord knows we could use a few more Mac people - to, if nothing else, put more pressure on Microsoft and rock their boat, they're way too complacent. But I know a lot of people who feel alienated by Mac for two main reasons - one, the macdroids. Nobody wants to join that club. Two, Apple's infantile and insulting marketing. Slagging the competition is as low as anyone can sink. I've seen pimps with more dignified advertising methods than that. "Hello I'm a Mac / ...and I'm a PC, blah blah". Don't they realize how bad of an idea it is to brandish 97% of the world's computer users as complete idiots? They might as well say "Hello. You're an absolute moron with no brain and no taste, and I despise you utterly. Now please buy our stuff." :confused:
artifex
Oct 3, 05:32 PM
I'll be the iPhone also has the ability to act as a FrontRow/iTV remote.
That really would be the complete experience. Well, that, and also roll out something like the ancient X10 interface, so you can turn your house lights off and on. OMG, imagine being able to use voice control. And a little iPhone acting as a local mic when at home!
That really would be the complete experience. Well, that, and also roll out something like the ancient X10 interface, so you can turn your house lights off and on. OMG, imagine being able to use voice control. And a little iPhone acting as a local mic when at home!
alent1234
Apr 8, 02:03 PM
Probably in the form of "bundles" where you're required to buy an iPad with their special accessory packs just so they can push overpriced accessories out of the door.
and don't forget the yearly cleaning that's a $199 value
and don't forget the yearly cleaning that's a $199 value
Mac.World
Apr 17, 01:43 PM
Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
3CCD
Aug 13, 02:32 PM
If they came out with new displays by the new year that would be wonderful. Looking to get a MBP with the new OSX when it comes out. If new displays come out, I'll be tempted to get one.
Stella
Mar 28, 03:02 PM
Good. I'm all in favor of Apple adding more incentives for devs to embrace the Mac App store. As a consumer I really like the idea of an App Store that makes buying and installing as easy as one click as well as fostering competition between comparable apps.
The Mac AppStore is SJ's wet dream - the closest that he'll get to controlling the platform - just like iOS.
Realistically, OSX cannot become totally closed.
Unfortunately, due to Apple's rules people will never know of the gems that are out there that cannot be included on the Mac AppStore... because they'll be brainwashed into thinking MacAppstore is the only way to get apps - outside of various retail stores.
The MacApp store would be more useful if Apple were to dropped its dracion rules. Some of its rules are wrthwhile having, but others... ugh.
It's a hell of a lot easier updating your apps and re-installing applications through the Mac App Store than any previous method. You don't have to check every single app on your machine to see if it's updated, nor do you have to go to the developers website if they don't have an automatic updater or even a manual updater.
I, like many people, had a hard time getting XCode 4.00 to be upgraded to XCode 4.01. AppStore simply wouldn't recognize that I had previously purchased XCode 4 (yes, I had the XCode installer in /applications ). Downloading outside of the appstore would have been vastly easier...
The Mac AppStore is SJ's wet dream - the closest that he'll get to controlling the platform - just like iOS.
Realistically, OSX cannot become totally closed.
Unfortunately, due to Apple's rules people will never know of the gems that are out there that cannot be included on the Mac AppStore... because they'll be brainwashed into thinking MacAppstore is the only way to get apps - outside of various retail stores.
The MacApp store would be more useful if Apple were to dropped its dracion rules. Some of its rules are wrthwhile having, but others... ugh.
It's a hell of a lot easier updating your apps and re-installing applications through the Mac App Store than any previous method. You don't have to check every single app on your machine to see if it's updated, nor do you have to go to the developers website if they don't have an automatic updater or even a manual updater.
I, like many people, had a hard time getting XCode 4.00 to be upgraded to XCode 4.01. AppStore simply wouldn't recognize that I had previously purchased XCode 4 (yes, I had the XCode installer in /applications ). Downloading outside of the appstore would have been vastly easier...
R.Perez
Mar 15, 10:01 PM
Which makes all the difference. Night and day. As far as anyone is concerned, making tech usable and desirable to that degree is pretty innovative.
You really need to step out of your fanboi bubble, it seems a little silly to be honest.
You really need to step out of your fanboi bubble, it seems a little silly to be honest.
radiohead14
May 3, 01:53 PM
some android phones already come with wifi tether built in and you could disable the data charge on vzw phones. the good people at xda will find ways for the rest of the phones as well.. so this isn't really a big deal
juliuspierpont
Mar 17, 01:23 AM
I would have a hard time enjoying something which reminded me every time I used it that I'd probably cost some kid his job, and that I basically stole. Sure, the feeling of euphoria for "sticking it to the man" must have been pretty cool, but now, every time you use it, remember what kind of person you are deep down. And don't for a minute think that returning that phone you found negates this...when the chips were down, and it was really tempting (not some cruddy used phone that you'd have had to make an effort to use) you failed at being a decent person.
Edit: This is what ignore lists are for, by the way. I hope I never have to read another thing you write.
Edit: This is what ignore lists are for, by the way. I hope I never have to read another thing you write.
darwen
Oct 10, 11:01 PM
What a shocker. Can this really be considered news anymore?
I saw this on Engadget a couple days ago... it is seriously getting old. Engadget does not have any good sources at apple.
I saw this on Engadget a couple days ago... it is seriously getting old. Engadget does not have any good sources at apple.
Nekbeth
Apr 28, 05:48 PM
Ok fellows, thanks for the waiting, my new house is a mess but at least all my furniture is here now. I follow both of your examples ( wlh99's E-mail project and the great explanation that Knight showed here). I first started a new project in order to avoid confusion and made some changes, the result is what I think " a working timer " with start, stop and reset buttons. If I see the code now it seems a bit obvious why the timer never stopped before. I can tell you right now that I never reset the global variables inside any cancel or reset button thus the timer always continued. I think that the first variable (NSInteger seconds = 0 before the first method) gets called only once after that we reset it to 0 using the reset or cancel method (we can do it separately like knight said), in my case I assign reset to be the one to set that to 0 and cancel to invalid the timer.
Knight and wh99, if you like to see the project running and tell me your throughs, just give me your E-mail addresses (I have Warren's already) so I can share it with you. For obvious reasons I'm not posting it and if some of you wonder why, it's for same reasons nobody posted the complete working code despite being able to make a timer in less than 3 minutes. (yes, I know it's because you think it would not help me and I understand)
Special thanks to Knight and wh99 for their patience and instructions.
Thanks also to everyone who gave his opinion on this matter.
* Here is photo of the log and UI
Knight and wh99, if you like to see the project running and tell me your throughs, just give me your E-mail addresses (I have Warren's already) so I can share it with you. For obvious reasons I'm not posting it and if some of you wonder why, it's for same reasons nobody posted the complete working code despite being able to make a timer in less than 3 minutes. (yes, I know it's because you think it would not help me and I understand)
Special thanks to Knight and wh99 for their patience and instructions.
Thanks also to everyone who gave his opinion on this matter.
* Here is photo of the log and UI
Mac.World
Apr 16, 09:05 AM
Um if it wasn't for a gay man you might not be speaking English and the computer as we know it would likely not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but in December 1932, the Polish Cipher Bureau first broke Germany's Enigma ciphers. Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau gave Enigma-decryption techniques and equipment to French and British military intelligence.
So in reality, if it wasn't for the Polish, Turing wouldn't have had the techniques to continue the Enigma work during WWII. Not taking anything away from Turing, but don't pretend if it wasn't for this one man, we wouldn't be speaking English now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but in December 1932, the Polish Cipher Bureau first broke Germany's Enigma ciphers. Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau gave Enigma-decryption techniques and equipment to French and British military intelligence.
So in reality, if it wasn't for the Polish, Turing wouldn't have had the techniques to continue the Enigma work during WWII. Not taking anything away from Turing, but don't pretend if it wasn't for this one man, we wouldn't be speaking English now.
iGary
Sep 25, 06:27 PM
I have an experiment for those that say "It runs fine on my <insert computer here>."
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
3. Use the patch tool.
Let us know what you find.
Thanks!
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
3. Use the patch tool.
Let us know what you find.
Thanks!
ncfuser
Jan 15, 05:42 PM
I agree with the people that are not happy.
Almost feels like Steve and Co. didn't get some of the things they wanted to done in time.
Such has 3G for the iPhone, TouchScreen, Blu-Ray, to name a few.
Out of the "4" topics, only two are worthwhile.
1. Wireless HDD -- Which I like. I am looking for a external HDD for my HD Camcorder video.
2. Thin laptop -- I really don't care for. A laptop without a CD/DVD drive is kinda silly. Does anyone really need something that tiny for that much $$$
The other two are not worth a Macworld Keynote and they feel like fillers to me.
So I would have to say s sub par day that didn't live up to the hipe.
:apple:
Almost feels like Steve and Co. didn't get some of the things they wanted to done in time.
Such has 3G for the iPhone, TouchScreen, Blu-Ray, to name a few.
Out of the "4" topics, only two are worthwhile.
1. Wireless HDD -- Which I like. I am looking for a external HDD for my HD Camcorder video.
2. Thin laptop -- I really don't care for. A laptop without a CD/DVD drive is kinda silly. Does anyone really need something that tiny for that much $$$
The other two are not worth a Macworld Keynote and they feel like fillers to me.
So I would have to say s sub par day that didn't live up to the hipe.
:apple:
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.
snberk103
Apr 13, 02:24 PM
It was so obvious that the little girl was carrying a weapon of mass destruction.
How much discretion should a TSA screener be given as to who should be given a secondary screening should something go "Bing". Six years and under, get a bye. How about seven years old? Is eight too young? How about VIPs and corporate CEOs? Should Randy Quaid get screened but not Charlie Sheen, because the screener has the discretion and a fondness for 2 1/2 men?
Here's an interesting video.... by the by....
It's just a game... admittedly. Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qx9VVJqcns). [Warning-mute your sound, it's very loud even at the quietest volume click]
How much discretion should a TSA screener be given as to who should be given a secondary screening should something go "Bing". Six years and under, get a bye. How about seven years old? Is eight too young? How about VIPs and corporate CEOs? Should Randy Quaid get screened but not Charlie Sheen, because the screener has the discretion and a fondness for 2 1/2 men?
Here's an interesting video.... by the by....
It's just a game... admittedly. Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qx9VVJqcns). [Warning-mute your sound, it's very loud even at the quietest volume click]
Applejuiced
Apr 22, 09:02 PM
Working on the IE issues.
arn
Thank you.
On the iPhone safari browser it works fine.
arn
Thank you.
On the iPhone safari browser it works fine.
arn
Nov 16, 12:32 PM
please no page 1 vs page 2 comments... :)
Leoff
Oct 29, 08:36 AM
Perhaps, (but I still maintain that it's 'easier' to run 'non-Apple' software on a Mac than it is to run OS X on 'non Apple' hardware. But it's true to say that calling Apple exclusively a 'hardware' or 'software' company is a little short sighted, so we're in agreement there.)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already :)
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
To clarify further:
We both agree. Apple is not a Hardware OR Software company. I was simply responding to the earlier rediculous notion that Apple is simply a Hardware company, which both you and I know it isn't. :)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already :)
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
To clarify further:
We both agree. Apple is not a Hardware OR Software company. I was simply responding to the earlier rediculous notion that Apple is simply a Hardware company, which both you and I know it isn't. :)
DoFoT9
May 14, 12:21 AM
the temps haven't been that high (70C or under). i have changed the voltages, but maybe not enough. that's one of those things you have to play with.
but it looks like 2 of my rigs are down now. i might be driving back to fix them tomorrow night i guess. i'll put both of them back to 3.5 ghz and hopefully they'll stay stable.
my asus has been rock solid compared to the other 2 though. staying at 3.5-3.6 ghz
oh thats not very hot! might be the PSU struggling maybe?
but it looks like 2 of my rigs are down now. i might be driving back to fix them tomorrow night i guess. i'll put both of them back to 3.5 ghz and hopefully they'll stay stable.
my asus has been rock solid compared to the other 2 though. staying at 3.5-3.6 ghz
oh thats not very hot! might be the PSU struggling maybe?
No comments:
Post a Comment