JAT
May 4, 10:26 AM
That's the joke.
On a more serious note, not really. I was trying to think of something other than web browsing. I have a HTPC that I cobbled together that takes care of that.
It's basically the ultimate "access" machine. Just yesterday I used my phone as a dictionary, store, terminal to enterprise software, link to external contact database. (also made some phone calls) iPad would be similar. Lookup, lookup, lookup. Web browsing is covered under that, too.
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.
On a more serious note, not really. I was trying to think of something other than web browsing. I have a HTPC that I cobbled together that takes care of that.
It's basically the ultimate "access" machine. Just yesterday I used my phone as a dictionary, store, terminal to enterprise software, link to external contact database. (also made some phone calls) iPad would be similar. Lookup, lookup, lookup. Web browsing is covered under that, too.
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.
Vegasman
Apr 6, 01:05 PM
Even bends Apple's own rules... :eek:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20051322-37.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20051322-37.html
JAT
May 4, 02:02 PM
What, you don't carry a projector in your back pocket? :D
I've considered it, just to be a show off. Kinda like Eidorian's post above, I'm known as the guy with gadgets and knowledge by friends/family. Whipping out a 40" screen from my pocket wouldn't hurt. ;)
I've considered it, just to be a show off. Kinda like Eidorian's post above, I'm known as the guy with gadgets and knowledge by friends/family. Whipping out a 40" screen from my pocket wouldn't hurt. ;)
ohyeahwtvr
Apr 4, 10:34 AM
In the last 4 pages of this forum topic, I think I remember something about you saying you were able to see that persons IP address while they were logging on to xbox live through some program.
well, i don't own an xbox 360 or any console at that.. the last console I've owned is the Nintendo NES :confused: .. I don't know exactly how that program works, but if your able to get an IP address, you can go to http://www.urgentclick.com/address_trace.php
and find out what type of internet they are connecting through, and what company is providing them with internet service. ie: dsl, cable, satellite.
for example.
68.190.xxx.xxx traced to: 68-190-xxx-xxx.dhcp.gldl.ca.charter.com
thats my IP address, it's dhcp (Cable) in glendale, CA. @ Charter communications
at the time the xbox were to connect to XBox Live.. if you get the IP address and run this search, the police would be able to call the internet provider, provide them with the IP in question and a warrant (or whatever is needed), they would be able to give you the perpetrators address.
then just bust down that guys door and the xbox is yours again.
I used to work for comcast communications as a customer service rep, and whenever the police would call in with something regarding theft or IP trace, etc., the process was simple. Literally plug in the IP address into the database and after a simple search, the customers profile would pop up.
if this is done fast enough, you can most likely catch them in the act..
dont know if this has helped or not, or you've probably already tried this, but just thought i'd share my 2cents.
well, i don't own an xbox 360 or any console at that.. the last console I've owned is the Nintendo NES :confused: .. I don't know exactly how that program works, but if your able to get an IP address, you can go to http://www.urgentclick.com/address_trace.php
and find out what type of internet they are connecting through, and what company is providing them with internet service. ie: dsl, cable, satellite.
for example.
68.190.xxx.xxx traced to: 68-190-xxx-xxx.dhcp.gldl.ca.charter.com
thats my IP address, it's dhcp (Cable) in glendale, CA. @ Charter communications
at the time the xbox were to connect to XBox Live.. if you get the IP address and run this search, the police would be able to call the internet provider, provide them with the IP in question and a warrant (or whatever is needed), they would be able to give you the perpetrators address.
then just bust down that guys door and the xbox is yours again.
I used to work for comcast communications as a customer service rep, and whenever the police would call in with something regarding theft or IP trace, etc., the process was simple. Literally plug in the IP address into the database and after a simple search, the customers profile would pop up.
if this is done fast enough, you can most likely catch them in the act..
dont know if this has helped or not, or you've probably already tried this, but just thought i'd share my 2cents.
more...
phineas
Oct 6, 01:22 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.
Dropped calls can also be from the equipment, and not just the carrier
I have had no problems with AT&T and have had great customer service. I think ill keep my network.
Dropped calls can also be from the equipment, and not just the carrier
janstett
Oct 18, 11:32 AM
For those who aren't intimately familiar with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I've really gotten into it in the past few months so here's a quick primer:
Discs will be replaced by downloads? Let me know when I can download a movie in 1080p with lossless 5.1 sound in a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps to the iToons generation that thinks 128kbps sound is good you can live with downloaded movies, but for me I don't think CD is good enough (I'm an SACD/DVD-A geek). Likewise I don't think DVD is good enough, why do I want to go backwards (downloadable movies) instead of forward (HD disc)?
Blu-Ray is the superior format, on paper. No doubt. However, there are a couple of wrenches in the works.
First, both formats are actually 90% the same. The physical storage medium is based on the same principles (blue laser) but different implementation (mostly depth of the reflective layer in the substrate). Blu-Ray is slightly denser and offers a higher total capacity (50GB vs 34GB, something like that). Blu-Ray is actually sort-of a superset of DVD from there, once you get to what's actually on the disc. HD-DVD has a new encryption layer (they learned from CSS), Blu-Ray uses this same scheme and then puts a 2nd layer of encryption on top of it. Both use the same codecs -- MPEG2, MPEG-4 H.262, and VC1 (Microsoft's codec), and Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Pure HD, DTS Plus, etc.
I believe movie studio support determines who wins. The studios were split 50-50 pretty much. Then, something funny happened. Some HD-DVD studios announced they would ALSO support Blu-Ray. In my mind, that meant Blu-Ray wins.
The launch came, HD-DVD came out first and Toshiba led the way with a pair of chunky, heavy, PC-based players at $500 and $1000. Everyone hated the Toshiba players, they were slow, unwieldy, and have awful remotes. A few months later Blu-Ray launched with Samsung's $1000 player, and surprisingly this player was AWFUL, and the picture quality looks worse over HDMI than component because they forgot to turn off some video filtering. Worse, the Blu-Ray transfers thus far have been very poor quality. This seems to be because Blu-Ray is leaning towards old MPEG-2 HD transfers, while HD-DVD has embraced VC1 (which is the best of the 3 video codecs for quality and size) and gotten new encodings with Microsoft's attention. Then, Toshiba started putting out firmware updates for their HD-DVD players and suddenly their players didn't suck so bad.
So here we are; the only Blu-Ray player on the market is a Samsung, Sony has no presence. We're one month away from the launch of the PS3 (which will play Blu-Ray) and the X-Box 360 HD-DVD drive.
Right now, HD-DVD has all the momentum. The Blu-Ray titles are low quality, they have no $500 player, and HD-DVD is building a head of steam.
I know I'm the minority around here when I say this, but I don't own an iPod. :eek: Yeah, it's true... I personally don't care for the MP3 format and the lesser quality offerings of iTunes. If it isn't at least CD quality, uncompressed, I don't want it. And yes, I can hear the difference on my sound system which is a separate setup from my home theatre.
:) I love iPods but I know I'm trading off quality for convenience. Meanwhile, I'm re-ripping all of my hundreds of CDs into Apple lossless format and putting the CDs in storage. It's not SACD, but at least I'll be back to CD quality.
Discs will be replaced by downloads? Let me know when I can download a movie in 1080p with lossless 5.1 sound in a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps to the iToons generation that thinks 128kbps sound is good you can live with downloaded movies, but for me I don't think CD is good enough (I'm an SACD/DVD-A geek). Likewise I don't think DVD is good enough, why do I want to go backwards (downloadable movies) instead of forward (HD disc)?
Blu-Ray is the superior format, on paper. No doubt. However, there are a couple of wrenches in the works.
First, both formats are actually 90% the same. The physical storage medium is based on the same principles (blue laser) but different implementation (mostly depth of the reflective layer in the substrate). Blu-Ray is slightly denser and offers a higher total capacity (50GB vs 34GB, something like that). Blu-Ray is actually sort-of a superset of DVD from there, once you get to what's actually on the disc. HD-DVD has a new encryption layer (they learned from CSS), Blu-Ray uses this same scheme and then puts a 2nd layer of encryption on top of it. Both use the same codecs -- MPEG2, MPEG-4 H.262, and VC1 (Microsoft's codec), and Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Pure HD, DTS Plus, etc.
I believe movie studio support determines who wins. The studios were split 50-50 pretty much. Then, something funny happened. Some HD-DVD studios announced they would ALSO support Blu-Ray. In my mind, that meant Blu-Ray wins.
The launch came, HD-DVD came out first and Toshiba led the way with a pair of chunky, heavy, PC-based players at $500 and $1000. Everyone hated the Toshiba players, they were slow, unwieldy, and have awful remotes. A few months later Blu-Ray launched with Samsung's $1000 player, and surprisingly this player was AWFUL, and the picture quality looks worse over HDMI than component because they forgot to turn off some video filtering. Worse, the Blu-Ray transfers thus far have been very poor quality. This seems to be because Blu-Ray is leaning towards old MPEG-2 HD transfers, while HD-DVD has embraced VC1 (which is the best of the 3 video codecs for quality and size) and gotten new encodings with Microsoft's attention. Then, Toshiba started putting out firmware updates for their HD-DVD players and suddenly their players didn't suck so bad.
So here we are; the only Blu-Ray player on the market is a Samsung, Sony has no presence. We're one month away from the launch of the PS3 (which will play Blu-Ray) and the X-Box 360 HD-DVD drive.
Right now, HD-DVD has all the momentum. The Blu-Ray titles are low quality, they have no $500 player, and HD-DVD is building a head of steam.
I know I'm the minority around here when I say this, but I don't own an iPod. :eek: Yeah, it's true... I personally don't care for the MP3 format and the lesser quality offerings of iTunes. If it isn't at least CD quality, uncompressed, I don't want it. And yes, I can hear the difference on my sound system which is a separate setup from my home theatre.
:) I love iPods but I know I'm trading off quality for convenience. Meanwhile, I'm re-ripping all of my hundreds of CDs into Apple lossless format and putting the CDs in storage. It's not SACD, but at least I'll be back to CD quality.
more...
TheChillPill
Jan 6, 04:03 AM
I would love to do this, but I'm put off by the whole 'unusable stream' thing that is inevitable for the first day or so.
It's a shame Apple don't use the same tech used for their movie trailers - at least that way I can wait until it's half loaded before I start watching. That way it can be watched without any stutters or pauses.
Even better, a full download via bittorrent would be ideal - and no doubt save them a packet on bandwidth.
That said, am I correct in thinking that you can save the completed file with QT Pro? Perhaps someone could do that and make a torrent from it?
It's a shame Apple don't use the same tech used for their movie trailers - at least that way I can wait until it's half loaded before I start watching. That way it can be watched without any stutters or pauses.
Even better, a full download via bittorrent would be ideal - and no doubt save them a packet on bandwidth.
That said, am I correct in thinking that you can save the completed file with QT Pro? Perhaps someone could do that and make a torrent from it?
MacRumors
Apr 5, 02:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/05/apple-releases-iad-gallery-app/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/05/155917-mzl.ilitqvfu.320x480-75.jpg
more...
rihanna haircut 2010. ala
How to get Rihannas Haircut
more...
Rihanna back haircut,
Short Bob Haircuts 2009
more...
Tags: 2009 emo haircuts,
Rihanna Latest Hairstyle
more...
Rihanna+haircut+photos
2009 Rihanna Hairstyles and
more...
popular Rihanna#39;s haircuts
celebrity haircuts rihanna
Rihanna#39;s Concave
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/05/155917-mzl.ilitqvfu.320x480-75.jpg
more...
TheSideshow
Apr 21, 09:52 AM
Its gunna be awesome. Im hoping for a Metro UI to surface.
Popeye206
Jan 15, 04:16 PM
One thing I think people need to keep in mind about the MB Air... it's NOT a replacement laptop or a replacement workstation!
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
more...
CEAbiscuit
Aug 7, 03:46 PM
Unfortunately they are still seriously lacking in ports. Digital DVI only...no VGA, S-Video, etc with input toggle switch. No easy way to hook up an Xbox 360 for instance. Or to give the monitor a second life as a tv if you upgrade to larger displays.
I hope they change their stance on this because it's a deal breaker for me.
Um, hate to say it, but the Dells have most of those things. My xbox is plugged in right along side my computer. Just hate that d*ll logo staring me in the face all the time.
I hope they change their stance on this because it's a deal breaker for me.
Um, hate to say it, but the Dells have most of those things. My xbox is plugged in right along side my computer. Just hate that d*ll logo staring me in the face all the time.
iOrlando
Apr 25, 10:26 AM
I think this is a great feature, and long overdue. It is very difficult to actually read through these comment threads once they hit 100 posts or so.
Few things:
1) I suggest have absolute tallies for the up and down votes. If one post got 300 votes on it, but the up votes offset the down votes, it would end up showing as 0 vs. a relatively obscure post that simply gets 4 up ratings would show up as 4. I want to see the comments that garnered a lot of attention/votes.
2) I also suggest coloring up arrows as green and down arrows as red. Much easier on the eye.
3) For those arguing about abuse with this feature, this site is geared for pro-Apple people, so any sense of impartiality or neutrality within the comments is non-existence. If people come to this site wanting pro-Apple stuff, they shouldn't be faced with trolls and other Apple haters.
Few things:
1) I suggest have absolute tallies for the up and down votes. If one post got 300 votes on it, but the up votes offset the down votes, it would end up showing as 0 vs. a relatively obscure post that simply gets 4 up ratings would show up as 4. I want to see the comments that garnered a lot of attention/votes.
2) I also suggest coloring up arrows as green and down arrows as red. Much easier on the eye.
3) For those arguing about abuse with this feature, this site is geared for pro-Apple people, so any sense of impartiality or neutrality within the comments is non-existence. If people come to this site wanting pro-Apple stuff, they shouldn't be faced with trolls and other Apple haters.
more...
SkyStudios
May 2, 12:41 PM
My only question is:
If there was a study that was conducted some time back [more than 2 months back] and got Apple to investigate the issue seriously, why did Apple wait for another study OR another media non-sense to acknowledge the bugs and report to the consumers?
Why did Apple not rectify the problem before? Did Apple already knew about these features or are they simply getting with this crap by calling them "bugs"?
To be honest, this is probably the first time I'm feeling that Apple was trying to play with the consumers privacy and trust. I think Apple just fooled us.
-deth a lawsuite was filed a year ago, apple refused to address the problem becuase it was not out in the public as it is now with Congress connecting trails to wall street and who knows why apple collected political views.
According to authorities, Apple uses trolls, some techs even to bury issues posted on forums so they can buy time if many people either give up or simply seem less in number, so if the ratio of complaints are kept low no one notices bugs,
Im not surprised that the FEDS are upset about this, if they had iphones people can track them and all sorts of info is out public or in the wrong hands, makes the wikileeks kids look like angels
If there was a study that was conducted some time back [more than 2 months back] and got Apple to investigate the issue seriously, why did Apple wait for another study OR another media non-sense to acknowledge the bugs and report to the consumers?
Why did Apple not rectify the problem before? Did Apple already knew about these features or are they simply getting with this crap by calling them "bugs"?
To be honest, this is probably the first time I'm feeling that Apple was trying to play with the consumers privacy and trust. I think Apple just fooled us.
-deth a lawsuite was filed a year ago, apple refused to address the problem becuase it was not out in the public as it is now with Congress connecting trails to wall street and who knows why apple collected political views.
According to authorities, Apple uses trolls, some techs even to bury issues posted on forums so they can buy time if many people either give up or simply seem less in number, so if the ratio of complaints are kept low no one notices bugs,
Im not surprised that the FEDS are upset about this, if they had iphones people can track them and all sorts of info is out public or in the wrong hands, makes the wikileeks kids look like angels
JForestZ34
Mar 17, 04:20 PM
The poor kid simply hit the "cash" button before typing in the total. I used to work at BB (now an attorney), so I feel sorry for the kid. The OP committed retail theft by knowingly leaving the store with a product he didn't pay full value for (differentiated from receiving a computer by mistake because of the intent requirement). If the kid is not fired he will surely be written up and never able to move upward in the company to get things like health insurance and other benefits. What's worse is that this is the time of the year when BB takes on a lot of new hires.
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
Good luck.. But it won't do any good... Nice try though....
James
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
Good luck.. But it won't do any good... Nice try though....
James
more...
minnesotamacman
Sep 12, 06:16 AM
Daffy Duck is from Warner, not Disney.
Good point! I think that would be Donald Duck who is friends with Mickey.
Good point! I think that would be Donald Duck who is friends with Mickey.
*LTD*
Mar 10, 07:52 AM
The Click Wheel interface was/is an abomination and exactly the opposite of a "good" interface. It's a horrible mess. The only usable iPod is the iPod Touch.
The click wheel interface was, in fact, a key element in the astounding (and that's putting it mildly) success of the iPod.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
Apple used to innovate, right now they have acheived the goal of any capitalist company, they've hit the big time with the iPhone and are resting on their laurels.
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
The click wheel interface was, in fact, a key element in the astounding (and that's putting it mildly) success of the iPod.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
Apple used to innovate, right now they have acheived the goal of any capitalist company, they've hit the big time with the iPhone and are resting on their laurels.
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
more...
MacsRgr8
Jan 5, 06:37 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the idea of a spoiler-free experience sort of run completely opposite to the purpose of this site? You sit around all year reading rumors and then don't want to be spoiled three hours before they post the keynote? Huh?
IMHO candidate for best post of 2007. :cool:
IMHO candidate for best post of 2007. :cool:
GFLPraxis
Apr 15, 02:02 PM
The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
I'll grant you the eighties. Now we get in to the ninties and there's...one in the United States, and it's an employee hijacking a company plane (FedEx).
So what's the correlation you're going for here? I'm not seeing it.
I see a decline from the 70's to the 80's, but the 90's seems in line with 2K.
We go ten years without a single commercial U.S. flight getting hijacked. Then 9/11. Then ten more years without. I'm not seeing some amazing statistical shift as a result of TSA. Further, I'm not seeing anything that justifies the new full body scanners. These were added without any supporting reasons.
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
And if your argument is that last year's full body scanners are justified, I would request much more evidence.
And how may people have the TSA found?
You tell me.
And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Same number as in the 90's.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
I'll grant you the eighties. Now we get in to the ninties and there's...one in the United States, and it's an employee hijacking a company plane (FedEx).
So what's the correlation you're going for here? I'm not seeing it.
I see a decline from the 70's to the 80's, but the 90's seems in line with 2K.
We go ten years without a single commercial U.S. flight getting hijacked. Then 9/11. Then ten more years without. I'm not seeing some amazing statistical shift as a result of TSA. Further, I'm not seeing anything that justifies the new full body scanners. These were added without any supporting reasons.
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
And if your argument is that last year's full body scanners are justified, I would request much more evidence.
And how may people have the TSA found?
You tell me.
And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Same number as in the 90's.
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.
balamw
Apr 16, 02:18 PM
Apple doesn't have much in common with the company that promised that updates. MS might have changed since their Longhorn days, but they are still much closer times wise for MS. We'll see in Vista a screw up for MS after resting on XP's success for so long, or if 7 was a fluke and MS has lost it.
I'm seeing 8 as a good OS X, but not the upgrade 7 was. Which is in part due to the mess that was Vista and the age of XP at the time of 7's launch.
While I agree with you overall, I think there have been plenty of features that NeXT-Apple has teased, but not ultimately delivered on. "Home on the iPod" is one and "resolution independence" is another, I'm sure there are more but these are two that might actually have mattered to me.
B
I'm seeing 8 as a good OS X, but not the upgrade 7 was. Which is in part due to the mess that was Vista and the age of XP at the time of 7's launch.
While I agree with you overall, I think there have been plenty of features that NeXT-Apple has teased, but not ultimately delivered on. "Home on the iPod" is one and "resolution independence" is another, I'm sure there are more but these are two that might actually have mattered to me.
B
Korivak
Oct 3, 09:56 PM
I think a lot of people are setting themselves up to be disappointed.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
plinden
Oct 19, 10:31 AM
Although it's not spelled out, Gartner estimate 59 million computers were sold worldwide last quarter. Apple says they sold 1.6 million, so that makes 2.7%. This is up from 2.2% (1.2 million out of 55 million) last quarter.
Still well behind the fifth placed Toshiba's 4.3% (according to Appleinsider (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158))
So if they continue growing at this rate, they won't be in the top 5 for 6-9 months.
Still well behind the fifth placed Toshiba's 4.3% (according to Appleinsider (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158))
So if they continue growing at this rate, they won't be in the top 5 for 6-9 months.
Yochanan07
Apr 9, 05:22 PM
Best Buy is no longer reputable... ( I think they were in the mid 90's)
Any dealings I've had with them have been slimy. They jack up the prices to ridiculous levels on items like Flash Memory, ripping off less than tech saavy folks who don't know any better.
Their online purchase option with in store pickup is almost criminal with it's
false promises and lack of honesty...
Stay away from Best Buy... They deserve to just fade away like Circuit City.
Apple, You taint your reputation by dealing with this Painted Lady.:mad:
Any dealings I've had with them have been slimy. They jack up the prices to ridiculous levels on items like Flash Memory, ripping off less than tech saavy folks who don't know any better.
Their online purchase option with in store pickup is almost criminal with it's
false promises and lack of honesty...
Stay away from Best Buy... They deserve to just fade away like Circuit City.
Apple, You taint your reputation by dealing with this Painted Lady.:mad:
bigandy
Jan 5, 07:59 PM
I love the idea of a non-spoiling keynote-experience.
BUT
As I can recall, just after the keynote is posted online, there seem to be that much people viewing it that it just becomes worthless to watch. Such as: image hickups, buffering-probs, vid/sound synchronization-probs...
That is if you even can connect to the stream! Most of the times, the feed just wasn't accessible!
Don't you guys have that problem over there in the States? Maybe it is because I'm in the EU? It really sucks, I guarantee..
Last January's MWSF was so annoying - I couldn't pick up a reliable stream until about four days later... :(
BUT
As I can recall, just after the keynote is posted online, there seem to be that much people viewing it that it just becomes worthless to watch. Such as: image hickups, buffering-probs, vid/sound synchronization-probs...
That is if you even can connect to the stream! Most of the times, the feed just wasn't accessible!
Don't you guys have that problem over there in the States? Maybe it is because I'm in the EU? It really sucks, I guarantee..
Last January's MWSF was so annoying - I couldn't pick up a reliable stream until about four days later... :(