Marx55
Oct 28, 05:33 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
bastiangatten
Oct 6, 01:02 PM
I have tried Verizon. It sucks. Even with the discount I get for working for GM it still sucks. Droped calls all the time. Half the time the conversation cut in and out and both sides would have to repeat their selves. And their customer service sucked too.
I have had no problems with AT&T and have had great customer service. I think ill keep my network.
I have had no problems with AT&T and have had great customer service. I think ill keep my network.
tjb1
Apr 6, 02:03 PM
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on it once you've had a chance to get comfortable with it.
:apple:
I use one of those at work. It's an absolute necessity with CAD work, but it tends to 'walk' around my desk.
Well I dont really have a cad program set up right now but in mastercam and google maps its a little difficult to use. Cant wait to get started in solidworks or inventor with it and hopefully learn how to use the little bugger.
:apple:
I use one of those at work. It's an absolute necessity with CAD work, but it tends to 'walk' around my desk.
Well I dont really have a cad program set up right now but in mastercam and google maps its a little difficult to use. Cant wait to get started in solidworks or inventor with it and hopefully learn how to use the little bugger.
Zwhaler
Apr 15, 09:55 PM
Agreed.
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 11:22 PM
My answer is that I don't know what purpose it serves, and neither do you. This does not mean it's dangerous.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell ....
Stand fanboy crap refusing to answer the question.
*LTD* That is not an answer to the question.
To me your refusal to answer screams that You are nothing more than a blind Apple fanboy who refuses to think for once self. The question gave you a broad latitude to answer it but you refused to.
This tells me if it was ANY ONE else but Apple you would be all over it. But because it is Apple you will worship it and say it is good.
So if you feel it is so GOOD. PROVIDE REASONS.
We have provided list of bad reasons and you have yet to provide a single good reason. You seem to be defending it so therefor you must have a long list of good reasons for it. So provide some good reasons why Apple should be data collecting like this.
For Cell phone providers I can understand why but I have yet to see a single reason why Apple or Google should.
At least when ask why Google responded. Apple has yet to respond and that is worry some.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell ....
Stand fanboy crap refusing to answer the question.
*LTD* That is not an answer to the question.
To me your refusal to answer screams that You are nothing more than a blind Apple fanboy who refuses to think for once self. The question gave you a broad latitude to answer it but you refused to.
This tells me if it was ANY ONE else but Apple you would be all over it. But because it is Apple you will worship it and say it is good.
So if you feel it is so GOOD. PROVIDE REASONS.
We have provided list of bad reasons and you have yet to provide a single good reason. You seem to be defending it so therefor you must have a long list of good reasons for it. So provide some good reasons why Apple should be data collecting like this.
For Cell phone providers I can understand why but I have yet to see a single reason why Apple or Google should.
At least when ask why Google responded. Apple has yet to respond and that is worry some.
ciTiger
May 3, 03:22 PM
This is a major setback IMHO...
I know it is illegal but carriers make tons of cash with their inflated prices... Who protects us from that?
I know it is illegal but carriers make tons of cash with their inflated prices... Who protects us from that?
Joshuarocks
Apr 7, 11:39 AM
Also this just in... Windows 8 appears to be running off of a Unix like platform underneath the GUI interface.. this could be the beginning of a Unix based OS similar to MAC OS X itself.
Ballmer has outdone himself this time.
Ballmer has outdone himself this time.
KnoxHarrington
Mar 25, 01:33 PM
*rolls eyes*
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
I really *like* the fact that the OS X and iOS groups seem to be talking to each other and sharing ideas with each other, rather than being in squabbling little camps that snipe at each other like you see at Microsoft.
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
I really *like* the fact that the OS X and iOS groups seem to be talking to each other and sharing ideas with each other, rather than being in squabbling little camps that snipe at each other like you see at Microsoft.
starnox
Sep 12, 08:09 AM
When's this event happening (GMT)?
devman
Jan 13, 10:01 AM
Wow, I just watched the keynote and my god this guy is hard to stand. I've watched previous keynotes and he never seemed this bad. The charisma he's displayed in the past has been replaced with smugness. He acted like the iPhone was the second coming of christ and we were so lucky that he existed to bring it upon us.
well when you can match what he has achieved in his career, you can be more humble about it. deal?
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given.
A vibrant and growing Apple Inc. is good for Mac and its users...
well when you can match what he has achieved in his career, you can be more humble about it. deal?
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given.
A vibrant and growing Apple Inc. is good for Mac and its users...
T-Will
Apr 6, 11:27 AM
This is probably a way for Apple to pad their iAd numbers before WWDC.
iMikeT
Oct 17, 07:24 PM
What ever the outcome is in the end, the hardware of one of these formats will be nothing more than a paper weight.
MikeTheC
Oct 5, 11:14 AM
I can certainly vouch for the sentiment expressed that people out there like the iTunes application without regard to how they have obtained their music. I have lots of music on my computers that I have accumulated over many years; and of all the media players I've used over the years, iTunes is without a doubt the nicest and best of the lot.
However, when it comes to the task of extracting audio from CDs and then encoding them as MP3s, I still prefer Audion. I like the specific controls it gives me. Also, the cost of the user interface experience in Audion for that particular set of tasks does not exceed the benefits of having used the program.
I fully understand someone's desire to protect the means of their own financial income. Clearly, the general public's acquisition of music or movies "for free" does not contribute to the artist's income from his/her creative efforts. However, I have two basic issues with present models (both the traditional "brick-n-mortar" as well as the digital DRM'd ones):
1. I feel the labels are by-and-large ripping off artists. Yes, I fully understand that label companies have much more invested in the business of making music than any single band or artist does; however that doesn't entitle them to make a king's randsom from each CD or DVD and pay the tiniest fraction of those monies to the artist. Due to my personal objections to this, I refuse to be party to this practice.
2. I object to having my usage rights in any way restricted. I do not like to be hemmed in (even in principle). I have not and never will sign any kind of license agreement (figuratively or literally) just for the benefit of possessing entertainment content.
A separate issue I have (which only applies to having to buy an entire CD at once instead of individual tracks) is that it's well known that most CDs have only a few good tracks on them; the remaining ones being largely "filler". I'm not saying there aren't ANY CDs out there where all the tracks are good. However most of the ones I've heard over the years have maybe 2-4 good tracks, and the rest are garbage.
The following is, admittedly, a bit off-topic, but it is pertinant to the subject at hand (that is, the licensing issue). It really gets me that you have the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI going after businesses which have music playing in their shop environment, especially when the music in question is NOT a live performance nor intented as a means of deriving additional income. And the crux of that issue, for me, is that the restaurants (and offices in many cases) have never signed any kind of licensing agreement with anyone (and moreover ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA try to turn this into a criminal issue when clearly it should more properly be tried as a civil issue -- on which I feel is baseless and that they should be laughed out of court over).
</rant>
However, when it comes to the task of extracting audio from CDs and then encoding them as MP3s, I still prefer Audion. I like the specific controls it gives me. Also, the cost of the user interface experience in Audion for that particular set of tasks does not exceed the benefits of having used the program.
I fully understand someone's desire to protect the means of their own financial income. Clearly, the general public's acquisition of music or movies "for free" does not contribute to the artist's income from his/her creative efforts. However, I have two basic issues with present models (both the traditional "brick-n-mortar" as well as the digital DRM'd ones):
1. I feel the labels are by-and-large ripping off artists. Yes, I fully understand that label companies have much more invested in the business of making music than any single band or artist does; however that doesn't entitle them to make a king's randsom from each CD or DVD and pay the tiniest fraction of those monies to the artist. Due to my personal objections to this, I refuse to be party to this practice.
2. I object to having my usage rights in any way restricted. I do not like to be hemmed in (even in principle). I have not and never will sign any kind of license agreement (figuratively or literally) just for the benefit of possessing entertainment content.
A separate issue I have (which only applies to having to buy an entire CD at once instead of individual tracks) is that it's well known that most CDs have only a few good tracks on them; the remaining ones being largely "filler". I'm not saying there aren't ANY CDs out there where all the tracks are good. However most of the ones I've heard over the years have maybe 2-4 good tracks, and the rest are garbage.
The following is, admittedly, a bit off-topic, but it is pertinant to the subject at hand (that is, the licensing issue). It really gets me that you have the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI going after businesses which have music playing in their shop environment, especially when the music in question is NOT a live performance nor intented as a means of deriving additional income. And the crux of that issue, for me, is that the restaurants (and offices in many cases) have never signed any kind of licensing agreement with anyone (and moreover ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA try to turn this into a criminal issue when clearly it should more properly be tried as a civil issue -- on which I feel is baseless and that they should be laughed out of court over).
</rant>
ucfgrad93
Mar 17, 01:14 AM
Haaaaaaa just shared a launch day story, and the majority of you would have hauled ass with iPad in hand for the price I paid. Haters lmfao
No, I wouldn't have. Unlike you, I don't enjoy ripping people off.
No, I wouldn't have. Unlike you, I don't enjoy ripping people off.
Mr. DG
Jan 9, 01:57 PM
dont refresh the news story page. There's a news ticker above that says what apple have released.
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.
imutter
Apr 6, 07:16 PM
http://i351.photobucket.com/albums/q478/webkinzmutter/c8f00597.png
gregorsamsa
Jan 12, 06:29 PM
Well, if you haven't met any of these mindless droids, consider yourself lucky. I've met enough of them to be sufficiently spooked. I've got a couple of them on a forum I moderate; one has a link to Apple store in his signature and spends most of his time posting the most contrived lies about Windows you could imagine (how you cannot switch a PC on without being drowned in a barrage of viruses etc), and the rest of his time coercing PC users into switching. It's quite clear from his descriptions of Windows he hasn't touched a PC since circa 1996, and any assurances that Windows has come a long way in terms of stability and security since Win95 are met with a kind of "lalalalalalalala...." At one point he insisted that a Mac Mini G4 1.42GHz is much faster than any PC ever made. When faced with real life benchmark tests where a midrange PC blasted the Mini into oblivion, he maintained that it was due to poor knowledge of Mac optimization on the part of the developers (whom I know to be Mac enthusiasts who port the software to Windows). This is just one example, over the years I've stumbled across way too many to list here.
It's great that people are enthusiastic about products, and most Mac users are regular joes who are just that, but it is my personal opinion that there also exists a 'Church of Apple' with 'members' who are smug, patronizing, holier-than-thou, basking in the glory of some perceived exclusivity and enlightenment, borderline brainwashed lodge brothers with a special handshake. It sickens me to no end. Again, this is merely one man's opinion, I know you wouldn't agree so let's just leave it there.
Regarding Steve, you're darn tootin' I don't know him. Only seen him in blurry keynote webcasts.
I consider your post to be spot on! I'm a Mac owner, but I must confess that I find most of my PC-owning friends to be refreshingly free of the type of smug, sycophantic, elitism some Mac people can't help but exhibit. Many PC owners I know wouldn't even recognize Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, etc. if they were introduced to them in the street.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
It's great that people are enthusiastic about products, and most Mac users are regular joes who are just that, but it is my personal opinion that there also exists a 'Church of Apple' with 'members' who are smug, patronizing, holier-than-thou, basking in the glory of some perceived exclusivity and enlightenment, borderline brainwashed lodge brothers with a special handshake. It sickens me to no end. Again, this is merely one man's opinion, I know you wouldn't agree so let's just leave it there.
Regarding Steve, you're darn tootin' I don't know him. Only seen him in blurry keynote webcasts.
I consider your post to be spot on! I'm a Mac owner, but I must confess that I find most of my PC-owning friends to be refreshingly free of the type of smug, sycophantic, elitism some Mac people can't help but exhibit. Many PC owners I know wouldn't even recognize Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, etc. if they were introduced to them in the street.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
Benjy91
Mar 25, 05:59 AM
Neowin has a nice article detailing a quick history.
10 Years of OS X (http://www.neowin.net/news/ten-years-of-os-x-from-heavily-criticized-to-heavily-praised)
10 Years of OS X (http://www.neowin.net/news/ten-years-of-os-x-from-heavily-criticized-to-heavily-praised)
63dot
Mar 3, 08:55 PM
The GOP is self-destructing at the worst possible time for future prospects in their party for 2012.
In a few months, GOP candidates will be starting their campaigns and the GOP today has just given individual candidates reasons to finger point at each other in what will probably be some vicious primaries.
And we all know how that will go. At least us liberals can fight like cats and dogs in the democratic, green, and left-leaning parties and make up in time for the election, but GOP primary opponents have traditionally held grudges against each other for life.
I don't know if establishment republicans will try and blame tea party republicans for the meltdown or vice versa, but without a unified front, the GOP is sunk nationwide for 2012.
After this set of debacles, it will be pretty easy to see the GOP does not have its nations interests at stake.
In a few months, GOP candidates will be starting their campaigns and the GOP today has just given individual candidates reasons to finger point at each other in what will probably be some vicious primaries.
And we all know how that will go. At least us liberals can fight like cats and dogs in the democratic, green, and left-leaning parties and make up in time for the election, but GOP primary opponents have traditionally held grudges against each other for life.
I don't know if establishment republicans will try and blame tea party republicans for the meltdown or vice versa, but without a unified front, the GOP is sunk nationwide for 2012.
After this set of debacles, it will be pretty easy to see the GOP does not have its nations interests at stake.
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:40 AM
I can't help but laugh. :D
On a side not I had to ask my Aussie flat-mates where the Gong was. The Gong is defiantly easier to say. ;)
I reckon Wool-on-gong (spelt Wollongong) is waaay easier to say than Okanagan or Saskatchewan. And yes, I say Saskatchewan properly.
On a side not I had to ask my Aussie flat-mates where the Gong was. The Gong is defiantly easier to say. ;)
I reckon Wool-on-gong (spelt Wollongong) is waaay easier to say than Okanagan or Saskatchewan. And yes, I say Saskatchewan properly.
Jaro65
Aug 6, 01:30 PM
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 find this situation so frustrating. When I went to Europe this summer, I felt like an idiot after trying to put a gasoline into my rental car. I didn't even know it was a diesel. The smell and clunking sounds that we used to associate with diesels are long gone with the modern diesel engines.
I'm looking to replace at least one of our cars (or maybe both) and I like Nissan Murano. Here in the US it only comes with a gasoline engine and gets about 19 mpg. In Europe it is also available with a diesel engine and gets 35 mpg.
Anyway, I would normally not consider purchasing a GM vehicle, but the Volt looks really good.
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 find this situation so frustrating. When I went to Europe this summer, I felt like an idiot after trying to put a gasoline into my rental car. I didn't even know it was a diesel. The smell and clunking sounds that we used to associate with diesels are long gone with the modern diesel engines.
I'm looking to replace at least one of our cars (or maybe both) and I like Nissan Murano. Here in the US it only comes with a gasoline engine and gets about 19 mpg. In Europe it is also available with a diesel engine and gets 35 mpg.
Anyway, I would normally not consider purchasing a GM vehicle, but the Volt looks really good.
sn
Apr 26, 04:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think the image has been played around with a bit but I don't know if that means it's definitely fake. It looks like everything in the image (hand, keyboard) are so brightly lit that the screen on the phone would have to look a lot more glarey/reflective/shiny than that. Unless the new screen is also a lot more matte. But it doesn't look right to me. Or maybe it's paper like a few people have suggested.
Edit, just realised the screen is obviously not more matte after looking at the second picture. I refuse to believe those are the same screens! Definitely suspicious...
I also believe that, as someone has suggested, the handset might be a tad smaller rather that the screen being bigger.
I think the image has been played around with a bit but I don't know if that means it's definitely fake. It looks like everything in the image (hand, keyboard) are so brightly lit that the screen on the phone would have to look a lot more glarey/reflective/shiny than that. Unless the new screen is also a lot more matte. But it doesn't look right to me. Or maybe it's paper like a few people have suggested.
Edit, just realised the screen is obviously not more matte after looking at the second picture. I refuse to believe those are the same screens! Definitely suspicious...
I also believe that, as someone has suggested, the handset might be a tad smaller rather that the screen being bigger.
bommai
Oct 17, 10:21 AM
The capacity argument was only really important for VHS vs Betamax because of the recording aspect. AFAIK there are no HD-DVD or BluRay recorders right now so essentially the capacity of the disk is meaningless to most people for Movies. Picture quality should be the deciding factor, and much like VHS vs Betamax, most people apparently can't see any real difference between BluRay and HD-DVD.
Really the only thing BluRay has on its side is the PS3.
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.
Really the only thing BluRay has on its side is the PS3.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment