arkitect
Apr 15, 09:48 AM
I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
So you would rather the message be:
"(Don't) Go ahead,(and) be gay. It's (not) perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to make for him/herself after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
Good god!
It is not a prison sentence!
"Embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle" ? :confused::confused:
Such as?
What an astonishingly bleak world view you have.
So you would rather the message be:
"(Don't) Go ahead,(and) be gay. It's (not) perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to make for him/herself after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
Good god!
It is not a prison sentence!
"Embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle" ? :confused::confused:
Such as?
What an astonishingly bleak world view you have.
iphonetester
Oct 7, 04:24 PM
I will not be surprised. This is similar to what happened to Apple and PC makers back in the days. Just the sheer volume of PC producers finally lifted Windows above OS X. I believe similar trend will follow on for mobile market. More and more phone makers will adopt Android or Windows Mobile and overtake Iphone OS.
DroidRules
Apr 28, 09:22 AM
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:50 AM
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
balamw
Apr 9, 03:50 PM
If it's too hot on bare legs, then common sense says, "don't put it on bare legs!" It's so simple, even a cave man could figure it out.
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 15, 06:09 AM
I think the worst-case scenario are winds blowing the plume inland.
And if the container degrades - fuel melts and "spills out" - does this not indicate loss of contact with the control rods? What's to stop things from there?
As for the comment earlier up about workers being there so things must be safe... You obviously don't remember what happened in the former USSR a quarter century back. Factor in the Japanese culture where self-sacrifice for the good of their people is looked highly upon. I'd say there's a damn good chance they know their killing themselves, but will continue to work to their ends.
And if the container degrades - fuel melts and "spills out" - does this not indicate loss of contact with the control rods? What's to stop things from there?
As for the comment earlier up about workers being there so things must be safe... You obviously don't remember what happened in the former USSR a quarter century back. Factor in the Japanese culture where self-sacrifice for the good of their people is looked highly upon. I'd say there's a damn good chance they know their killing themselves, but will continue to work to their ends.
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:41 PM
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:10 PM
Backtothemac:
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
Multimedia
Oct 9, 10:21 AM
I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.After watching that video I am more hyped up about getting the 8-core Mac Pro than before for my Multi-Threaded Workload. I also watched the Otellini Keynote (http://mfile.akamai.com/28603/wmv/intelstudio.download.akamai.com/10670//idf/event3/092606_pso/pso_high.wmv) and was struck by Phil Schiller's appearance where he REFUSED to utter the phrase "Core 2 Duo" with regard to the 24" iMac on stage. I was shocked and appalled that he made no mention it is Core 2 Duo. He called it a Core Duo iMac. Blows me away he forgot to say the "2" part.
I can't tell if that was intentional on his part or not. :eek:
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.After watching that video I am more hyped up about getting the 8-core Mac Pro than before for my Multi-Threaded Workload. I also watched the Otellini Keynote (http://mfile.akamai.com/28603/wmv/intelstudio.download.akamai.com/10670//idf/event3/092606_pso/pso_high.wmv) and was struck by Phil Schiller's appearance where he REFUSED to utter the phrase "Core 2 Duo" with regard to the 24" iMac on stage. I was shocked and appalled that he made no mention it is Core 2 Duo. He called it a Core Duo iMac. Blows me away he forgot to say the "2" part.
I can't tell if that was intentional on his part or not. :eek:
awmazz
Mar 12, 04:53 AM
Eh?
:eek:
Agh, you're too quick for me and quoted me before I edited my post. I was thinking exactly that scene but was confusing helium instead of hydrogen.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
I never said the reactor exploded. I suggested we were in the process of witnessing a full on meltdown. I'm not wrong yet, although I hope I am.
Edit - BBC journalist now saying live on TV that they've been stopped 60km from the nuclear plant, so that official 10-20km radius is just more of making it seem not as bad as they know it really is.
:eek:
Agh, you're too quick for me and quoted me before I edited my post. I was thinking exactly that scene but was confusing helium instead of hydrogen.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
I never said the reactor exploded. I suggested we were in the process of witnessing a full on meltdown. I'm not wrong yet, although I hope I am.
Edit - BBC journalist now saying live on TV that they've been stopped 60km from the nuclear plant, so that official 10-20km radius is just more of making it seem not as bad as they know it really is.
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:55 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
KingYaba
Aug 29, 06:27 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
H. Flower
Apr 12, 11:36 PM
Photoshop & AE are awesome applications. Premiere might be a decent editing app, but nobody in the industry uses it. A very small % sure, but only because they don't know FCP or Avid. Maybe do-it-all small post houses, but not dedicated editors. I'm not really trying to knock Premiere - just stating facts.
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
Consultant
Feb 15, 04:49 PM
That's like arguing Linux will rule all computers in 201xyz.
Interesting thought... I guess that's why so few people develop for the Iphone. Probably explains the paltry 150,000 apps written in the last eighteen months and the pitiful 3,000,000,000 downloads.
I wish we had more .net developers cranking out apps a rate of 4 a year. Hopefully, Apple will learn from the folks in Redmond and really start making useful stuff.
Plus the apple app store is confirmed to own close to 95% of mobile app market.
Interesting thought... I guess that's why so few people develop for the Iphone. Probably explains the paltry 150,000 apps written in the last eighteen months and the pitiful 3,000,000,000 downloads.
I wish we had more .net developers cranking out apps a rate of 4 a year. Hopefully, Apple will learn from the folks in Redmond and really start making useful stuff.
Plus the apple app store is confirmed to own close to 95% of mobile app market.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 12:49 PM
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :D
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?
Multimedia
Oct 26, 04:13 PM
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.ROTFLMAO :D :p :) You're breaking my balls Ben.
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:49 AM
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
zaphon
Apr 20, 11:25 PM
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
CAWjr
Mar 18, 11:05 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
ohio.emt
May 5, 12:02 PM
I haven't had any dropped calls yet. I think the problem is more the iPhone, than AT&T's network . If I drive out of 3G service my iPhone drops service and says no service on it, doesn't revert to the Edge network most times. I have to turn 3G off or turn airplane mode of then on to get service on Edge. IMHO apple needs to fix the software in order to make the switch to and from Edge and 3G like other phone, no drop in service it just switches over. Sitting at home if I turn 3G on I get 3G signal and speed with 4 bars, but after about 5 minutes it switches to Edge. Any other phone besides the iPhone stays on 3G.
javajedi
Oct 10, 06:45 PM
This weekend I'm going to try to vectorize it with the Altivec and make it available for you guys. Frankly I don't know how simple or difficult this will be, but I'm going to look into it. As far as the code itself.. well.. it's very basic. Not only was it not vectorized for the G4, it wasn't vectorized for the P4. If anything the other platforms are at a software disadvatage because it's being ran under Java. The Mac OS X version is native code.
I think what we have learned from all this is that the G4 has a *REAL* problem with integer and double precision floating point. Ofcourse going to Altivec would bypass these registers and help considerably. But that just goes to show you without Altivec code you are far behind everything else.
Once again I'll see what I can do about an Altivec version, it should be very intresting indeed.
EDIT: I should also note that your 500MP didn't benifit from the extra processor, all of the math is being done in the main event loop.
I think what we have learned from all this is that the G4 has a *REAL* problem with integer and double precision floating point. Ofcourse going to Altivec would bypass these registers and help considerably. But that just goes to show you without Altivec code you are far behind everything else.
Once again I'll see what I can do about an Altivec version, it should be very intresting indeed.
EDIT: I should also note that your 500MP didn't benifit from the extra processor, all of the math is being done in the main event loop.
