NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:39 AM
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini)
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
archipellago
May 2, 04:52 PM
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
well they certainly know much better than you....
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
well they certainly know much better than you....
miles01110
May 2, 09:34 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:09 AM
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
Thanks for the kind words...Im just taking what MacVault is saying in context.
I dont believe (and if he is...Im 100% against his post. So forgive me folks if you thought I meant otherwise) that he's advocating death for gay youth...but rather a gay lifestyle will result in eternal death/damnation/etc as it conflicts with the scriptures he cited. I encourage folks to read my other posts (especially early pages) to get an idea of my own personal opinion. Stay well friend!
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
Thanks for the kind words...Im just taking what MacVault is saying in context.
I dont believe (and if he is...Im 100% against his post. So forgive me folks if you thought I meant otherwise) that he's advocating death for gay youth...but rather a gay lifestyle will result in eternal death/damnation/etc as it conflicts with the scriptures he cited. I encourage folks to read my other posts (especially early pages) to get an idea of my own personal opinion. Stay well friend!
caity13cait
Sep 23, 07:31 AM
I've noticed a lot of people going on about the iTV being 802.11n compatible. What I want to know is how is this going to be incorporated into wireless networks that are currently supporting 802.11 a,b & g. If it is going to be 802.11n then we are all going to need new routers to accommodate the higher transfer rate, and what about all those individuals possessing an imac / mac mini with built in wireless with no way to upgrade to the new standard without getting new machines or additional hardware. its going to be an expensive upgrade on top of the $299 price for an iTV
IT is backwards compatable. Unfortunately if the iTv requires it for larger hd files in the future it may be a problem. I am not sure how far along Apple is on 802.11n but it seems to me if they are going to require it they better start putting it in computers soon. I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
IT is backwards compatable. Unfortunately if the iTv requires it for larger hd files in the future it may be a problem. I am not sure how far along Apple is on 802.11n but it seems to me if they are going to require it they better start putting it in computers soon. I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
Steve121178
Apr 28, 07:45 AM
Guessing 2012 see Apple shift up again? Redesigned MacBook Pro's, retina display iPad 3..
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
phantomsd
Jun 19, 10:51 PM
Haven't experienced a dropped call yet... then again, I barely use my minutes.
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
Cougarcat
May 2, 12:30 PM
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
archipellago
May 2, 05:02 PM
My head hurts� everyone needs a time out! Go to your corners! :p
sorry, I'm done here now.
sorry, I'm done here now.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:51 PM
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
McKellar
Oct 6, 12:44 AM
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:35 PM
And as long as humans are in charge of designing, building, and maintaining them, there will be errors.
zero2dash
Jul 13, 10:47 AM
Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Just to keep the numbers rolling:
mortal kombat 9 mileena
mortal kombat 9 smoke costume.
mortal kombat 9 kitana
Mortal Kombat The Krypt
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:56 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
Reach
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
y so mad?
I look forward to reading about your success against AT&T in the near future. Based on your immature responses I think we all have our answer on that.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
y so mad?
I look forward to reading about your success against AT&T in the near future. Based on your immature responses I think we all have our answer on that.
rdowns
Mar 25, 10:13 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
FloatingBones
Apr 28, 09:12 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
KnightWRX
May 2, 03:24 PM
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
roadbloc
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
That was the most depressing 6mins of my life. But still, good cause I guess...
