azentropy
Mar 28, 04:13 PM
http://scoopertino.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kool-aid_lime.jpg
Ooh the arguments are getting heated up in this thread :D
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
What no orange or cherry?
Sure Apple can offer 7 different iPod Nano colors but they can't offer more than 2 different Apple Kool Aid flavors?!?!?
Ooh the arguments are getting heated up in this thread :D
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
What no orange or cherry?
Sure Apple can offer 7 different iPod Nano colors but they can't offer more than 2 different Apple Kool Aid flavors?!?!?
grahamtearne
Sep 12, 04:21 AM
isnt the event being streamed live over to london for the us?
if so i am quietly optimistic about us uk'ers getting a new movie store along with the us. i see no reason to stream it to the uk if the annouced products wont be released here, thats just teasing!
if so i am quietly optimistic about us uk'ers getting a new movie store along with the us. i see no reason to stream it to the uk if the annouced products wont be released here, thats just teasing!
casperghst42
Aug 2, 04:39 PM
Your laws ARE perverted (meaning they are not fair and serve only greed).
Just like our laws are perverted in many of our states, yours in your tiny country has a worse effect. After all, you still don't matter in the grand scheme of things...
And sooner or later, Apple will leave you, then you won't be able to buy anything from iTunes...
I think you should look up the word 'perverted' before you use it in this context.
The laws are there to protect the 'user', and there is nothing wrong with that, this case is the same as the case against M$, Apple have an unfair advantage over any other producer of media players, media from iTMS will only play on iTunes or on an iPod, which is what this whole case is about.
Just like our laws are perverted in many of our states, yours in your tiny country has a worse effect. After all, you still don't matter in the grand scheme of things...
And sooner or later, Apple will leave you, then you won't be able to buy anything from iTunes...
I think you should look up the word 'perverted' before you use it in this context.
The laws are there to protect the 'user', and there is nothing wrong with that, this case is the same as the case against M$, Apple have an unfair advantage over any other producer of media players, media from iTMS will only play on iTunes or on an iPod, which is what this whole case is about.
gnasher729
Oct 2, 05:12 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
Napster (and Vongo, never heard of them) couldn't do that. Fairplay doesn't have any time limit. If you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, it will work forever (or as long as Apple Computer exists). If you have a Napster subscription, and Napster made it possible that you download a song and add the Fairplay DRM to it, then iTunes would play it today and forever.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
Napster (and Vongo, never heard of them) couldn't do that. Fairplay doesn't have any time limit. If you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, it will work forever (or as long as Apple Computer exists). If you have a Napster subscription, and Napster made it possible that you download a song and add the Fairplay DRM to it, then iTunes would play it today and forever.
Night Spring
Apr 27, 02:00 PM
IE9 on Win7. Buttons currently working with no purple box.
BlindMellon
Apr 25, 05:33 PM
I don't get the fascination with a marginal bigger screen, if I need a bigger screen I get my iPad.
I actually really dislike the borderless look. I hope they don't do this. A larger screen is one thing I really don't need. If I want a big screen, I'll get an iPad.
yep, 3.7" screen = iPad. :rolleyes:
I actually really dislike the borderless look. I hope they don't do this. A larger screen is one thing I really don't need. If I want a big screen, I'll get an iPad.
yep, 3.7" screen = iPad. :rolleyes:
wlh99
Apr 27, 01:46 PM
Thanks, here is the echoIt method :
- (void) echoIt:(NSTimer *)timer // SECONDS METHOD
{
fast and furious nissan skyline. Nissan Skyline R34 Fast And; Nissan Skyline R34 Fast And. JAT. Apr 8, 02:59 PM. As a former BBY employee I can tell you a
2 fast 2 furious cool car
fast and furious nissan skyline. Nissan Skyline R34 Fast And; Nissan Skyline R34 Fast And. rtdunham. Sep 12, 08:27 AM
fast and furious nissan skyline. Nissan Skyline R34 Fast And; Nissan Skyline R34 Fast And. GoKyu. Mar 24, 05:08 PM
.jpg "cars i.e. NISSAN SKYLINE")
cars i.e. NISSAN SKYLINE
2001 Nissan Skyline #39;2 Fast 2
2fast2furious_nissan_skyline.
Fast amp; furious nissan
Fast amp; furious movie cars:
Nissan Skyline (of 2fast 2
Fast Furious 2 Skyline,
fast and furious nissan skyline. Nissan Skyline Gtr R34; Nissan Skyline Gtr R34. lordonuthin. Jul 14, 08:21 PM. it#39;s cable internet. the company is
- (void) echoIt:(NSTimer *)timer // SECONDS METHOD
{
French iPod
Apr 13, 01:11 PM
just ordered Just Cause 2 since i couldn't find it in store hopefully to get it by friday if not then next monday...
killuminati
Sep 9, 04:33 PM
While we're on the topic, I also e-mailed Apple, asking them to put the "EXPLICIT" warning next to the keynote. My 11-year old son likes watching them, but he won't be seeing this one; profanity = unprofessional.
lol, I think he can watch the keynote. Just stop if you want at the last 2 minutes when Jobs intros Kanye. And at 11 years old I'm sure your son has heard profanity before.
lol, I think he can watch the keynote. Just stop if you want at the last 2 minutes when Jobs intros Kanye. And at 11 years old I'm sure your son has heard profanity before.
chrismacguy
Apr 13, 12:57 PM
Put a big, thick, security door between the cockpit and the passengers that can take a stronger blast than the plane's hull.
Problem solved; the risk of a man with a knife on a plane is identical to that same man on a public train or bus.
No ridiculous pat-downs and feeling up of children needed. Allow profiling and leave the metal detectors in place (similar security to our local courthouse) to prevent casual idiots, and have the security door to minimize damage from an organized attempt (if they can't hijack the plane, and can only kill the people on board, it's not worth the trouble; they can just go blow up a bus), and you've got a pretty good balance of security.
Actually, that wont work, because someone somewhere on that plane outside of the cockpit will have to know the code, and the door will end up being opened mid-flight regardless - otherwise how are pilots supposed to eat/go to the loo on longer flights? Organised groups would take advantage of that in a second, making your idea null and void on any flight over approx 3 hours. The Shoot-up on a plane also wont cause that much damage. While a bullet may exit the aircraft and cause a decompression, in theory the most that should rip away of the aircrafts outer-skin is a 10-10 square. Not drastic, and definitely survivable. Even with multiple bullet holes, the plane would still in all likelihood get down to 10,000ft and then proceed to land with no loss of non-shot-at life, which is what the TSA actually cares about
Problem solved; the risk of a man with a knife on a plane is identical to that same man on a public train or bus.
No ridiculous pat-downs and feeling up of children needed. Allow profiling and leave the metal detectors in place (similar security to our local courthouse) to prevent casual idiots, and have the security door to minimize damage from an organized attempt (if they can't hijack the plane, and can only kill the people on board, it's not worth the trouble; they can just go blow up a bus), and you've got a pretty good balance of security.
Actually, that wont work, because someone somewhere on that plane outside of the cockpit will have to know the code, and the door will end up being opened mid-flight regardless - otherwise how are pilots supposed to eat/go to the loo on longer flights? Organised groups would take advantage of that in a second, making your idea null and void on any flight over approx 3 hours. The Shoot-up on a plane also wont cause that much damage. While a bullet may exit the aircraft and cause a decompression, in theory the most that should rip away of the aircrafts outer-skin is a 10-10 square. Not drastic, and definitely survivable. Even with multiple bullet holes, the plane would still in all likelihood get down to 10,000ft and then proceed to land with no loss of non-shot-at life, which is what the TSA actually cares about
Superken7
May 3, 02:42 PM
First: I thought this was called macrumors.com ... oh well :)
Second: Android supports sideloading, no rooting or any hacking required on 99.99% of all phones. You can just DL and install that app. (for now, wait until the modified ROM disables that, like the HTC something by ATT... frickin carrieres!! :/)
Second: Android supports sideloading, no rooting or any hacking required on 99.99% of all phones. You can just DL and install that app. (for now, wait until the modified ROM disables that, like the HTC something by ATT... frickin carrieres!! :/)
saunders45
Sep 8, 10:27 AM
So Saunders then what you're saying is that to believe in god you can't swear? He's not sending mixed messages because his songs aren't saying ******* god.
And just so you know, compared to any other big rappers right now, Kanye doesn't swear at all. He has the cleanest lyrics of any of the current big rappers because he isn't gangsta rap.
While I do agree that he isn't a thug/gangsta rapper, which is a good thing, I still believe he is sending mixed messages. He is trying to portay himself as though he believes/follows Jesus, and yet is swearing......
Do I believe in God? ******* yeah!!!
Sounds kind of stupid to me........ Mixing God and swearing....
And just so you know, compared to any other big rappers right now, Kanye doesn't swear at all. He has the cleanest lyrics of any of the current big rappers because he isn't gangsta rap.
While I do agree that he isn't a thug/gangsta rapper, which is a good thing, I still believe he is sending mixed messages. He is trying to portay himself as though he believes/follows Jesus, and yet is swearing......
Do I believe in God? ******* yeah!!!
Sounds kind of stupid to me........ Mixing God and swearing....
wmmk
Aug 14, 09:44 PM
Hey guys, when did we stop talking about displays and start the communism discussion?
in posts 135-139. still, this is related to the price of the displays, so we're not totally off topic.
in posts 135-139. still, this is related to the price of the displays, so we're not totally off topic.
Consultant
Dec 23, 01:59 AM
4G is a lie. (Even CNN confirmed it).
About iPhone to verizon, maybe, maybe not.
Quote of the day. Fanned!!
Oh, sorry we can't fan here. .....
You can friend someone but it takes a few steps.
About iPhone to verizon, maybe, maybe not.
Quote of the day. Fanned!!
Oh, sorry we can't fan here. .....
You can friend someone but it takes a few steps.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
kernkraft
Jul 30, 11:22 AM
I think the Volt is a success in terms of meeting its intended design parameters. However, I think the whole notion of the all-electric car and plug-in hybrids are flawed due to our current infrastructure.
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
snberk103
Apr 15, 02:38 PM
...
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
...
My only claim is that something the TSA is doing is working to help prevent hijackings. This was in response to some arguments that nothing airport security was doing was in fact useful. If you go back, you will see I quoted both TSA and European stats, not just TSA. And that while there may have been no passenger hijackings in the 90s in the USA, there were a couple in Europe, and one in Japan. And then nothing in Europe and Japan or the USA since 9/11. Which I believe is due to increased airport security, similar to what the TSA does.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
...
My only claim is that something the TSA is doing is working to help prevent hijackings. This was in response to some arguments that nothing airport security was doing was in fact useful. If you go back, you will see I quoted both TSA and European stats, not just TSA. And that while there may have been no passenger hijackings in the 90s in the USA, there were a couple in Europe, and one in Japan. And then nothing in Europe and Japan or the USA since 9/11. Which I believe is due to increased airport security, similar to what the TSA does.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
Pressure
Oct 19, 10:23 AM
Aye, international numbers would be good to see.
Good news for Apple :)
Good news for Apple :)
Malcster
Sep 12, 04:26 AM
isnt the event being streamed live over to london for the us?
if so i am quietly optimistic about us uk'ers getting a new movie store along with the us. i see no reason to stream it to the uk if the annouced products wont be released here, thats just teasing!
Yup, i dont reckon he'd stream it live to us just to blow us a raspberry, or any other fruit for that matter.
if so i am quietly optimistic about us uk'ers getting a new movie store along with the us. i see no reason to stream it to the uk if the annouced products wont be released here, thats just teasing!
Yup, i dont reckon he'd stream it live to us just to blow us a raspberry, or any other fruit for that matter.
swy32x
Sep 8, 09:45 AM
Waaah
What about Madonna being there? What a stupid skank. What an absolute, no-talent whore, wannabe religious wack job.
She annoys me with all her whining and she is no good at what she does ...
^^
Replace Madonna with Kanye and that is exactly how you guys sound ...
What about Madonna being there? What a stupid skank. What an absolute, no-talent whore, wannabe religious wack job.
She annoys me with all her whining and she is no good at what she does ...
^^
Replace Madonna with Kanye and that is exactly how you guys sound ...
ITR 81
Oct 17, 12:43 PM
On paper, Bluray has more support across the board but they have not come out with anything yet.
Samsung came out with the first BD player
Panasonic just came out now.
Sony will come out soon
Pioneer will come out soon
Philips - don't know.
HP, Dell, Apple, TDK, etc. are all in Bluray camp.
Fox and Disney are Bluray only
Paramount and Warner are in both camps
Universal is HD-DVD only
The only hardware vendor right now for HD-DVD is Toshiba. Even the RCA one is made by Toshiba.
So, even though BD has all this support, they cannot seem to come out with a cheap player. The movies are priced about the same. So, once the price comes down, I think it will be great. I don't agree with PS3 being the savior because I don't think most people use their game consoles to watch movies.
Sony is releasing two new blu-ray players in Dec, in Japan.
Also I first messed with DVD's when I first got my PS2 player..so I would say most will experiment with blu-ray dvd's on their PS3's just like I did before buying a DVD player.
Samsung came out with the first BD player
Panasonic just came out now.
Sony will come out soon
Pioneer will come out soon
Philips - don't know.
HP, Dell, Apple, TDK, etc. are all in Bluray camp.
Fox and Disney are Bluray only
Paramount and Warner are in both camps
Universal is HD-DVD only
The only hardware vendor right now for HD-DVD is Toshiba. Even the RCA one is made by Toshiba.
So, even though BD has all this support, they cannot seem to come out with a cheap player. The movies are priced about the same. So, once the price comes down, I think it will be great. I don't agree with PS3 being the savior because I don't think most people use their game consoles to watch movies.
Sony is releasing two new blu-ray players in Dec, in Japan.
Also I first messed with DVD's when I first got my PS2 player..so I would say most will experiment with blu-ray dvd's on their PS3's just like I did before buying a DVD player.
tayloner182
Sep 28, 12:33 PM
The house is a little bigger than those drawings depict, as there are stairs leading to a downstairs that is not shown. Probably to the 5th bedroom that is mentioned, likely a downstairs guest room of sorts or something.
Agree with everyone else though. Simple, not over the top. I like.
Agree with everyone else though. Simple, not over the top. I like.
skunk
Apr 27, 12:58 PM
When did I say anything about what people are "entitled" to be???You implied it very clearly in the post Mord was replying to.
bigdz68
Nov 24, 04:42 AM
Oddly enough, from the education store, you can't get the extra discounts. Well at least not on the ipod...but on the government store ... YOU CAN!
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D