jhu
Oct 29, 08:28 PM
You have no idea what "free" means, do you? Free software has absolutely nothing to do with the money you pay to obtain it. Commercial software that you would pay thousands of dollars for can be a perfectly good example of "free" software.
huh??
it's freedom of speech versus free beer. it all depends on the license the authors used for the code though.
huh??
it's freedom of speech versus free beer. it all depends on the license the authors used for the code though.
Gloor
Jan 15, 04:52 PM
Can somebody tell me why there was no update or price drop on ACD? Why is the PRO market left to the most critical point and then updated? Mac Pro is the best example. Its a brilliant machine now but 2 weeks ago? Some of the parts were 2 years old and they still charged the same amount of money for it. Dell, HP etc. are releasing new and updated displays whilst Apple ...........sleeps?
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Xenc
Apr 30, 06:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Aw, the sunken buttons aren't as cool as the slider.
Aw, the sunken buttons aren't as cool as the slider.
freebooter
Oct 13, 03:00 PM
Jobs should build his iPhone of houses out of iPhones. ;)
lostprophet894
Apr 15, 04:10 PM
Volume rocker...
Good point. Forgot that it was supposed to be the casing rather than the whole thing.
What's the point of opening another thread?
Well I don't know about everybody else, but I don't bounce around from forum to forum. Most of the time I spend on MR is between here and the Community Discussion. If this thread wasn't opened I probably wouldn't have seen this.
Is it really that troublesome for you?
Good point. Forgot that it was supposed to be the casing rather than the whole thing.
What's the point of opening another thread?
Well I don't know about everybody else, but I don't bounce around from forum to forum. Most of the time I spend on MR is between here and the Community Discussion. If this thread wasn't opened I probably wouldn't have seen this.
Is it really that troublesome for you?
~Shard~
Nov 23, 05:25 PM
In any event, it gives me an excuse to click on Apple.com tomorrow.
You need an excuse? :p ;) :D
You need an excuse? :p ;) :D
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 10:35 AM
already exists - Amazon Cloud/Music Player
What's go good about it?
It's like dropbox but free for 5GB. :rolleyes:
What's go good about it?
It's like dropbox but free for 5GB. :rolleyes:
deannnnn
Apr 24, 01:44 AM
How about establishing a "thanks" button? If we feel the post merits a thank you as it's really helpful we hit that.
Yeah, that or a +1 button. Rather than focusing on whether a post is "good" or "bad" we could just focus on the positives.
Yeah, that or a +1 button. Rather than focusing on whether a post is "good" or "bad" we could just focus on the positives.
nosen
Sep 25, 01:58 PM
Breaking News: First Look at Aperture 1.5
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/24732.html?cprose=daily
by Ben Long - coAuthor Aperture Pro Training
Thanks for the link! After reading this, I'm VERY excited about upgrading now! The enhancements to the library are very welcome for me. It might even tempt me to import my entire photo library... :o
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/24732.html?cprose=daily
by Ben Long - coAuthor Aperture Pro Training
Thanks for the link! After reading this, I'm VERY excited about upgrading now! The enhancements to the library are very welcome for me. It might even tempt me to import my entire photo library... :o
bluejacket
Sep 12, 08:13 AM
Film content from Fox and Dreamworks?!
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
Judging by the URL these are for trailers.
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
Judging by the URL these are for trailers.
KingYaba
Mar 3, 09:38 PM
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
The outcry, in this case, is the jail sentencing for striking.
The outcry, in this case, is the jail sentencing for striking.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 02:39 PM
Yes, you'll get a great idea by the votes. :D
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
Arcady
Sep 12, 01:26 AM
don't think we're just getting Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck movies
Daffy Duck is from Warner, not Disney.
Daffy Duck is from Warner, not Disney.
sailnavy
Jan 15, 02:13 PM
So are we ever going to see Time Machine support for the TB drive I bought for my AEBS in preparation for Time Machine release?
JackAxe
May 2, 05:35 PM
Hopefully it'll fix the bug I get when I want to have a song on repeat, seems to ignore the first song played and then it works on the second :(
You should submit that to Apple here;
http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html
And keep on it everytime there's an update and no resolve. I sent them several feedbacks about Apple Lossless skipping, which they eventually resolved.
You should submit that to Apple here;
http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html
And keep on it everytime there's an update and no resolve. I sent them several feedbacks about Apple Lossless skipping, which they eventually resolved.
RichyHo
Sep 12, 08:29 AM
Wow those analysts really are going out on a limb with those predictions.
I am still of the opinion that the key to todays announcements is a large (30-50"), imac-styled, wall-mounted(?) computer with FULL media center capabilities. It would team up nicely with the iTunes movies angle and could be what the initial rumors of a 30" iMac were all about. £2000+ price point. HD, 5/7.1, inbuilt digital TV decoder. Consumer electronics? Maybe the 24" iMac was pushed out early to squash the 30" rumor? Just a guess.
Ah well... not long now....
I am still of the opinion that the key to todays announcements is a large (30-50"), imac-styled, wall-mounted(?) computer with FULL media center capabilities. It would team up nicely with the iTunes movies angle and could be what the initial rumors of a 30" iMac were all about. £2000+ price point. HD, 5/7.1, inbuilt digital TV decoder. Consumer electronics? Maybe the 24" iMac was pushed out early to squash the 30" rumor? Just a guess.
Ah well... not long now....
maflynn
Apr 22, 06:20 PM
Here's the reality of this non-issue:
Apple is not actually collecting this data, and this hidden file is neither new nor secret.
Sorry.
Sorry to break it to you but a device that records my location and saves that for reporting back, or for someone else to read is a serious breach of my privacy. As I stated, the police were fully aware of this, making this privacy breach more big brother like then anything else.
If anyone else were doing this, you'd be crying foul so fast but because its your beloved apple, they get a pass for recording your locations :confused:
Apple is not actually collecting this data, and this hidden file is neither new nor secret.
Sorry.
Sorry to break it to you but a device that records my location and saves that for reporting back, or for someone else to read is a serious breach of my privacy. As I stated, the police were fully aware of this, making this privacy breach more big brother like then anything else.
If anyone else were doing this, you'd be crying foul so fast but because its your beloved apple, they get a pass for recording your locations :confused:
tvachon
Jan 8, 04:58 PM
Could it be possible to get an RSS just for this page? So we can instantly know when it is up?
true777
Oct 4, 04:22 AM
This is the Mac mini of houses at best.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
jclardy
Apr 5, 03:41 PM
I wonder if they are letting users view the ads "for free" or if the companies are getting charged for each click inside the gallery.
I really hope the companies budget isn't being spent that way, as it means even less iAd inventory for other applications.
For the companies it probably doesn't matter either way, although if it was free for them then it is better for them and might make them buy more ad inventory.
I really hope the companies budget isn't being spent that way, as it means even less iAd inventory for other applications.
For the companies it probably doesn't matter either way, although if it was free for them then it is better for them and might make them buy more ad inventory.
MorphingDragon
Apr 29, 07:29 PM
I personally find that the "translucent plastic" in Windows 7 looks like it was ripped off from the 90s and a bad Linux window manager. Seriously, it screams "look at me, I'm trying too hard!".
And it's a complete rip-off of KDE 4.x.
So KDE4 is a bad 90s Linux Window Manager?
And it's a complete rip-off of KDE 4.x.
So KDE4 is a bad 90s Linux Window Manager?
TequilaBoobs
Nov 24, 08:56 PM
LOL! Santa Rosa introduced on Tuesday... :D (just kidding!)
my merom is now obsolete!! grr
my merom is now obsolete!! grr
No comments:
Post a Comment