milo
Sep 12, 05:35 PM
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Does the PC have to be next to the xbox, or is there a way to transfer (hopefully stream) video wirelessly? And if you're using a PC for this, does it tie up the PC or can you use it for other things?
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table.
What makes you think that wouldn't be possible? Elgato does allow pausing live TV, don't they? I don't see why that couldn't be passed on through the iTV.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
There's no reason to use uncompressed HD, all consumer HD formats are compressed and quality can still be very good. Broadcast HDTV only uses about 20Mb, easily handled by .n. And I doubt many people will be "dismayed" by iTunes quality. Right now, isn't HDTV usage way ahead of HD dvd usage? So aren't most people already watching "dvd quality" on their HDTV's?
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
You're using the .g wireless standard, there's a .n standard on the way which is considerably faster. Looks like the new one is what apple will use.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Does the PC have to be next to the xbox, or is there a way to transfer (hopefully stream) video wirelessly? And if you're using a PC for this, does it tie up the PC or can you use it for other things?
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table.
What makes you think that wouldn't be possible? Elgato does allow pausing live TV, don't they? I don't see why that couldn't be passed on through the iTV.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
There's no reason to use uncompressed HD, all consumer HD formats are compressed and quality can still be very good. Broadcast HDTV only uses about 20Mb, easily handled by .n. And I doubt many people will be "dismayed" by iTunes quality. Right now, isn't HDTV usage way ahead of HD dvd usage? So aren't most people already watching "dvd quality" on their HDTV's?
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
You're using the .g wireless standard, there's a .n standard on the way which is considerably faster. Looks like the new one is what apple will use.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:56 PM
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
roadbloc
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
That was the most depressing 6mins of my life. But still, good cause I guess...
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 23, 10:46 PM
Because we are smart intellectual people who believe in science and it's God given power :)
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
ductapesuprhero
Mar 20, 01:58 PM
I say break the law and be done with it.
It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.
I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.
I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
Thunderhawks
Apr 28, 08:35 AM
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
whfsdude
Mar 20, 11:41 AM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Exactly! I know when I used to steal music it wasn't because I wouldn't buy it, it was because it was far easier to leave the computer on downloading some songs that I would have to go to two or three places to find.
Now that their is iTMS it's easier to buy and I can find most of the music that I want that wouldn't even be in stores.
Yes, some people will always steal but most of the consumers won't steal if they find a service they like. With iTMS service there is no reason to steal. Yes I do strip the DRM from my files. Why? Because I don't like having DRM on my files, it's just that simple. I am not using 5 computers, using 3. I use the non-DRMed files on my iBook and iPod. No reason to de-DRM except for the fact it makes me feel like I don't have control over the music.
Bottom line is people will support your service or products if they enjoy and use them. So as a company you have to trust your consumers and consumers must trust a company. DRM = breaking trust. :(
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Exactly! I know when I used to steal music it wasn't because I wouldn't buy it, it was because it was far easier to leave the computer on downloading some songs that I would have to go to two or three places to find.
Now that their is iTMS it's easier to buy and I can find most of the music that I want that wouldn't even be in stores.
Yes, some people will always steal but most of the consumers won't steal if they find a service they like. With iTMS service there is no reason to steal. Yes I do strip the DRM from my files. Why? Because I don't like having DRM on my files, it's just that simple. I am not using 5 computers, using 3. I use the non-DRMed files on my iBook and iPod. No reason to de-DRM except for the fact it makes me feel like I don't have control over the music.
Bottom line is people will support your service or products if they enjoy and use them. So as a company you have to trust your consumers and consumers must trust a company. DRM = breaking trust. :(
Multimedia
Nov 1, 01:49 AM
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.Thank you for the positive feedback. But I don't rip anything from DVDs much at all. I crush EyeTV2 broadcast recordings with Toast 7.1 (UB) to DVD Images on hard drives. Then I 2-pass rip from those images with Handbrake to mp4 so I'm not having any optical bottleneck at all. From what you say, this should be much faster like I'm hoping with all those cores.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.Thank you for the positive feedback. But I don't rip anything from DVDs much at all. I crush EyeTV2 broadcast recordings with Toast 7.1 (UB) to DVD Images on hard drives. Then I 2-pass rip from those images with Handbrake to mp4 so I'm not having any optical bottleneck at all. From what you say, this should be much faster like I'm hoping with all those cores.
sushi
Mar 12, 04:24 AM
I think that the key is not to get ahead of ourselves.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
CaoCao
Mar 24, 06:52 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
generik
Sep 26, 03:35 AM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
thespazz
May 8, 02:46 AM
Hopefully one day I won't drop a call. Happens too often.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:20 PM
Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
iMeowbot
Sep 26, 02:01 AM
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
The situation with Illustrator is particularly maddening, because it's just the sort of thing that could do really well on a pile of CPUs if it was written to take advantage of them :(
The situation with Illustrator is particularly maddening, because it's just the sort of thing that could do really well on a pile of CPUs if it was written to take advantage of them :(
1macker1
Mar 18, 12:24 PM
AHAHAHHAHA, good job. I think the head of Napster should send this link to the record company execs. Karma is a bitch.
speedriff
Feb 17, 06:51 AM
So what is your job at Apple? The problem with Apple (trust me I love their products) is that they don't care what their customers want concerning wireless products. They seem to only change when they might lose marketshare. If you call that good business then I suggest a history lesson of Japanese business practices. They see a company that is succsessful but isn't giving customers what they want, they fill that demand and walk away (eventually) with all the marketshare. One only has to look at Cars, motorcycles, televisions etc. to see it. I am starting to think Steve Jobs is a douche for more reasons than flash. I am always reading articles about him having a little tantrum and banning this or that because someone made him mad. Grow up Steve and give your LOYAL customers what they want or we will go elsewhere when a viable alternative arrives. Don't fall into the, "The bigger they are the harder they fall" category. As for Flash, it may be a little buggy so let me download it at me own risk. Sorry, but Flash is everywhere and I am tired of not being able to view it. Someday that won't be the case but until then...let me have it. I'm going to spend $800 on an iPad when I can't view Flash content? Really? Sorry, not me. I will just stick with my trusty notebook.:apple:
bartzilla
Apr 20, 08:17 AM
One thing I would say, as someone who didn't "switch" but who uses both quite comfortably, is that you need to appreciate how the system works and try and work with it rather than against it, so rather than saying "This is how I used to do things in Windows, now what can I do on a Mac that's similar to the way I used to do it in Windows" you need to think about what you're trying to achieve and find out what neat ways the mac has of getting that done.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:17 AM
You don't get it.
Please elaborate LTD.
Please elaborate LTD.
dmw007
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
The Mac Pros are going to receive Woodcrest processors. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
Multimedia
Nov 3, 04:12 AM
Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
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?
dashiel
Oct 7, 01:45 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
hmm i've had the opposite experience. coming from an actionscript/javascript background i've been thoroughly impressed with the sdk in particular and obj-c in general. there's definitely a learning curve, but i suspect that would be true going to any real programming language.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
hmm i've had the opposite experience. coming from an actionscript/javascript background i've been thoroughly impressed with the sdk in particular and obj-c in general. there's definitely a learning curve, but i suspect that would be true going to any real programming language.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 09:00 AM
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment