CaoCao
Mar 24, 11:01 PM
Perhaps I missed something but these all appear to be acts of violence against homosexuals. Don't get me wrong, they are horrible acts but I believe that CaoCao specifically stated acts motivated by mainstream Catholicism.
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
WiiDSmoker
Apr 20, 07:47 PM
You obviously don't work in IT or no anything about how viruses are spread. Windows can get a virus just by being on a network with an infected machine or opening an email in Outlook from someone on an infected machine. I fix these kind of issues for a living and see it all the time. The truth is its insanely easy for viruses to get onto, and hide in Windows. Windows allows the files to completely hide themselves even if hidden and system files are set to show. The only way to see them on an infected machine is to yank the hard drive and plug it into a mac or linux based machine then you can spot hidden infected files if you know where they are located.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
No, it's a flaw with being the market leader.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
No, it's a flaw with being the market leader.
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:55 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
applefan69
Apr 9, 01:53 PM
I used to have an iPhone, and I like a few of the games for it. I even liked playing them on my iPad.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
meh, 40 games at $0.99 is alot better than one game at $40. I dont care how you put it, you cant argue that.
BTW my iphone 3gs easily gets a whole days battery. Thats with me using it all day including for games (no gps nav.) I would say YOUR iPhone has a bad battery, probably from bad charging habits and being left in the cold. But because YOUR iphone has a bad battery, I would not sum up all iPhones. The world does not revolve around you.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
meh, 40 games at $0.99 is alot better than one game at $40. I dont care how you put it, you cant argue that.
BTW my iphone 3gs easily gets a whole days battery. Thats with me using it all day including for games (no gps nav.) I would say YOUR iPhone has a bad battery, probably from bad charging habits and being left in the cold. But because YOUR iphone has a bad battery, I would not sum up all iPhones. The world does not revolve around you.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:38 AM
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
DeathChill
Apr 21, 12:08 AM
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
It's not skewing the number at all because that's the addressable market for any developer developing on iOS.
It's not skewing the number at all because that's the addressable market for any developer developing on iOS.
mahonmeister
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
I am looking forward to this device but it seems I need a new TV.:)
I really hope they add more buttons to the remote. There needs to be a better balance between simplicity & elegance vs functionality & practicality.
I really hope they add more buttons to the remote. There needs to be a better balance between simplicity & elegance vs functionality & practicality.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
spacemanspifff
Apr 6, 08:11 AM
Once you start using it, you'll find that the Mac OS is a much more intuitive system, but you may have to unlearn the ways of the windows. With the Mac, the desktop paradigm is fully realised - so if you want to move something from one place to another, you do it just as you would in the real world, by picking it up and dropping it where you want it. Don't worry about opening the destination first, as the finder will automatically open windows for you.
If you want keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, go into System Preferences and select keyboard, then you can add/change as many as you like. To change the defaults - just double click on the existing one.
You can use smart folders on the Mac which basically perform a live search and update their contents automatically - this allows you to make a folder which contains any combination of files/folders/apps for any amount of time.
Also, as pointed out by others here, Shift select is the same as Windows and if you do Cmd select, you can select the first two files, miss out the next one then select three more etc.
Hope this helps, my advice is make the jump, you will not regret it.
If you want keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, go into System Preferences and select keyboard, then you can add/change as many as you like. To change the defaults - just double click on the existing one.
You can use smart folders on the Mac which basically perform a live search and update their contents automatically - this allows you to make a folder which contains any combination of files/folders/apps for any amount of time.
Also, as pointed out by others here, Shift select is the same as Windows and if you do Cmd select, you can select the first two files, miss out the next one then select three more etc.
Hope this helps, my advice is make the jump, you will not regret it.
hush
Sep 20, 08:41 AM
Well, actually I cannot understand why Apple has rejected original nano's design and has made a return to ipod mini style... IMO Ipod Nano was one of the best designs in Apple's recent history, so I am looking for a second hand one :)
Cheers,
Cheers,
c.hilding
Oct 26, 08:55 PM
Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:06 AM
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
love you friend images. i love
i love you friend. love you
all friend love you quotes
i love you best friend poems.
Graphic: 58 (all i love you
I Love You - Orkut Romantic
i love you friend sayings. i
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
cluthz
Mar 19, 03:41 AM
In the perfect world, this wouldn't be neccecary.
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
torbjoern
Apr 23, 09:54 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
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?
Multimedia
Oct 31, 10:21 AM
My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
Multimedia
Nov 1, 10:17 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
sblasl
Oct 28, 02:16 PM
OK, so I now know what the potential capabilities of the new machines will have. If I look at the Apple Store and see the 3 current base options & price, when the release occurs, what is the speculation of choices & prices?
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.
mdriftmeyer
Aug 29, 02:34 PM
Where is SUN? Brother, Samsung, Kodak, Minolta, SONY, etc?
I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?
I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?
Jack Stacks
Mar 18, 09:33 AM
AT&T already gets $50 I'll be damned if I pay anymore for the 1 time a month I actuly need to pull up a full web page due to flash. Yes they get $50 for data, $30 for my unlimited plan (I use ~1gb) and $20 for unlimited texts which is simply insanely small amounts of data.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
slffl
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Isn't it was everyone was expecting? Looks like an Airport Express in a different form factor to accomodate all of the different ports. Basically gives you the ability to stream your videos from your computer.
firestarter
Mar 15, 08:21 PM
True, many European civil nuclear programs (France in particular comes to mind) were nationalistic ventures perhaps more than anything. I wonder how the politics will play out in Germany.
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
ghost187
Apr 20, 07:35 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
I couldn't agree more with this initiative. I'm so glad that a group of employees would be willing to do this on their own time. Bravo!