slinger1968
Oct 27, 02:39 AM
Yeah I'd love one too. A little pricey for a process since it's in the Extreme series though.I was thinking about the mainstream quadcore Kentsfield chips that will be released in Q1 07 but even an Extreme series 2.66GHz Kentsfield (~ $999) will be a lot cheaper than a 2 chip 2.66GHz Woodcrest ($715 x 2 @newegg).
I'd guess the mainstream 2.4GHz quad-core Kentsfield will be somewhere around $700, certainly cheaper than two 2.33GHz Woodcrest chips(I know this isn't currently an option on the Mac Pro) and probably about the same as two 2GHz Woodcrest chips.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217
Plus the chipset/motherboard and ram will be cheaper too.
By next spring/summer, just in time for CS3, Apple could reasonably sell a single chip quad-core Kentsfield towers for no more than $1999 but I don't think there's much of a chance it will happen. Too bad
I'd guess the mainstream 2.4GHz quad-core Kentsfield will be somewhere around $700, certainly cheaper than two 2.33GHz Woodcrest chips(I know this isn't currently an option on the Mac Pro) and probably about the same as two 2GHz Woodcrest chips.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217
Plus the chipset/motherboard and ram will be cheaper too.
By next spring/summer, just in time for CS3, Apple could reasonably sell a single chip quad-core Kentsfield towers for no more than $1999 but I don't think there's much of a chance it will happen. Too bad
�algiris
May 2, 09:15 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 09:04 AM
I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
matticus008
Mar 19, 06:00 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
desigarms
Feb 11, 12:42 PM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Load Sholmod..it's a open step, one package to root (hack) your phone.
And the coolest part about it is, it's made for people like you...meaning it's dummy proof! ;)
Load Sholmod..it's a open step, one package to root (hack) your phone.
And the coolest part about it is, it's made for people like you...meaning it's dummy proof! ;)
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 11:11 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
citizenzen
Mar 24, 07:57 PM
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
Sm0kejaguar
Oct 26, 10:56 AM
After much debate and anguish i finally decided to order my Mac Pro yesterday... figures this would come up now.... /sigh. I am assuming they will only add a higher end config, but honestley... do any of us know?
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:27 PM
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 11:57 PM
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, the would blind me by my 35th birthday. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
iphone 4 covers hello kitty.
white iphone 4 cover.
White iPhone 4 will be the
Felix (White) iPhone 4 Cover
iphone 4 covers. iphone 4
iphone 4 covers marc jacobs.
Swarovski Crystals iPhone 4
Diamond-covers-iphone-4-cases-
apple iphone 4 covers and
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, the would blind me by my 35th birthday. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
ryme4reson
Oct 9, 12:56 PM
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:41 PM
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
toddicus
Nov 3, 06:08 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
rhett7660
Feb 21, 04:31 PM
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
Peterkro
Mar 14, 12:01 PM
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
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?
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:55 PM
If you want to argue about your religion(or lack there of), it's probably better to you use this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1019714). We've covered a lot of ground there.
This thread is about why there is a higher demographic of Atheists in this particular forum.
This thread is about why there is a higher demographic of Atheists in this particular forum.
matticus008
Mar 20, 11:01 PM
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
I'm not here to impose what I think is right. I think that all electronic music-playing devices should support all of the DRM models so that regardless of where I get my music legally, I can use it. I don't like that I can have an mp3 player that can't play the music I buy on iTunes, but I've already written the companies involved, as well as my Senator and state and national level Congressmen. I've worked with people who make the decisions about law to bring this issue to their attention. That's not the point here. No one is stopping you from reasoning or thinking, even though it's clear you have chosen not to do so. But that's your right. It's not that I disagree, it's that the law disagrees. Independent of that, on a fundamental, moral level, breaking your word (wrt the iTunes TOS) cannot be morally justified. Don't give your consent and agreement if you don't intend to uphold it. Where is your moral compass now? If you don't value your word and don't care about breaking the law and you want to break DRM or pirate music, go ahead. But don't come here and say that it's right to do it, because it's simply not. There are legal ways to address your concerns, and you are not using them. There's no excuse.
EDIT: missed this little gem earlier...
I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you.
I would encourage my children to question and think and come to their own conclusions, just as I encourage students to do in my volunteer work. I'd expect them to stand up for what they believe in, and if they find an injustice, they should do what they can to stop it. That said, if they break the law in doing so, they must also know that there are consequences for that and accept them.
But what you are proposing is not questioning, it's self-serving rationalization. I'm not proposing that anyone roll over and agree with me, because I don't need anyone to agree with me. The law isn't something to agree with or disagree with, there's no room for debate. I expect people to question the law and hold their government accountable, and to act for change when appropriate. That is separate from deciding that the law isn't a good one and just not following it, based on your judgment. It doesn't free you from the consequences. If someone decides that the law that says you stop when the light is red is a bad law and just keeps going, what they just did is wrong, whether or not they get caught or prosecuted. If you do get pulled over, your personal idea that the law is stupid is not going to get you off the hook and you are very much responsible for paying the fines/doing the time.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
I'm not here to impose what I think is right. I think that all electronic music-playing devices should support all of the DRM models so that regardless of where I get my music legally, I can use it. I don't like that I can have an mp3 player that can't play the music I buy on iTunes, but I've already written the companies involved, as well as my Senator and state and national level Congressmen. I've worked with people who make the decisions about law to bring this issue to their attention. That's not the point here. No one is stopping you from reasoning or thinking, even though it's clear you have chosen not to do so. But that's your right. It's not that I disagree, it's that the law disagrees. Independent of that, on a fundamental, moral level, breaking your word (wrt the iTunes TOS) cannot be morally justified. Don't give your consent and agreement if you don't intend to uphold it. Where is your moral compass now? If you don't value your word and don't care about breaking the law and you want to break DRM or pirate music, go ahead. But don't come here and say that it's right to do it, because it's simply not. There are legal ways to address your concerns, and you are not using them. There's no excuse.
EDIT: missed this little gem earlier...
I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you.
I would encourage my children to question and think and come to their own conclusions, just as I encourage students to do in my volunteer work. I'd expect them to stand up for what they believe in, and if they find an injustice, they should do what they can to stop it. That said, if they break the law in doing so, they must also know that there are consequences for that and accept them.
But what you are proposing is not questioning, it's self-serving rationalization. I'm not proposing that anyone roll over and agree with me, because I don't need anyone to agree with me. The law isn't something to agree with or disagree with, there's no room for debate. I expect people to question the law and hold their government accountable, and to act for change when appropriate. That is separate from deciding that the law isn't a good one and just not following it, based on your judgment. It doesn't free you from the consequences. If someone decides that the law that says you stop when the light is red is a bad law and just keeps going, what they just did is wrong, whether or not they get caught or prosecuted. If you do get pulled over, your personal idea that the law is stupid is not going to get you off the hook and you are very much responsible for paying the fines/doing the time.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
philbeeney
Mar 11, 01:51 PM
And to compound matters further, they've had a 6.2 on the west coast in Nigaata prefecture. Not looking good especially with all the aftershocks occurring.
desdomg
Mar 18, 04:57 PM
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
Ah, but isn't that the heart of the matter - shouldn't you have the choice to be to go to another cheaper provider? At the moment we have expensive and free - no wonder P2P is such a success.
Ah, but isn't that the heart of the matter - shouldn't you have the choice to be to go to another cheaper provider? At the moment we have expensive and free - no wonder P2P is such a success.
.Andy
Apr 23, 03:58 PM
Yay! It's .Andy! G'dday!
G'day skunk and PRSI friends! Apologies been busy down here :).
G'day skunk and PRSI friends! Apologies been busy down here :).
spicyapple
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
Did anyone listen to TWiT? Someone mentioned 80 cores. Clovertown, your days are numbered. ;)
Xeperu
Apr 26, 01:15 PM
The deal with religious people is to ignore them if you disagree.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה