hob
Jan 9, 01:22 PM
This is getting unbearable now. It's all happened, and i don't know what! Such a test of our resolve and patience...
How much longer is the wait usually?
MA.
Was this your idea? I'll kill ya :p
It's normally up pretty snappy. That being said I've normally got my head in all their new sites and stuff to keep me happy...
I accidentally just went on BBC News... spoilt one surprise for myself :(
How much longer is the wait usually?
MA.
Was this your idea? I'll kill ya :p
It's normally up pretty snappy. That being said I've normally got my head in all their new sites and stuff to keep me happy...
I accidentally just went on BBC News... spoilt one surprise for myself :(
alphamale
Apr 7, 03:53 AM
http://i972.photobucket.com/albums/ae204/onkelalkohole/Mac/05_1698560682.jpg
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.
NAG
Jan 11, 10:10 PM
I thought it was funny. Were they being annoying and disruptive? Yes. Are they going to have a harder time getting in the various expos and conferences? Probably. I'm not going to demand they get banned for pulling a prank. This isn't shocking either. I mean, do people actually take gizmodo seriously? They fabricate rumors and post stuff that isn't exactly safe for work. People expecting them to act like journalists are kind of fooling themselves.
altecXP
Apr 29, 07:36 PM
Is this a second 1GB+ update after the last 1GB update?
ct2k7
Apr 23, 01:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
How would they acquire the data? How would they know this is a young person they actually want to follow? Couldn't they just follow them home from somewhere? Does the person need to lose their phone for a danger to occur? Does this paedophile need to have a phone with them?
The tracking that is occurring is by cell tower identification when someone is in range of one. Will the paedophile have access to a spy satellite to zero in on the exact location of an individual?
I'm still not buying it.
Oh lord,
Over here, there was a pedophile, who used elaborate means, e.g key logging and malware to track down the exact locations of his/her prey.
How would they acquire the data? How would they know this is a young person they actually want to follow? Couldn't they just follow them home from somewhere? Does the person need to lose their phone for a danger to occur? Does this paedophile need to have a phone with them?
The tracking that is occurring is by cell tower identification when someone is in range of one. Will the paedophile have access to a spy satellite to zero in on the exact location of an individual?
I'm still not buying it.
Oh lord,
Over here, there was a pedophile, who used elaborate means, e.g key logging and malware to track down the exact locations of his/her prey.
slb
Sep 12, 01:19 AM
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs.
The iTMS didn't start with the largest library or all the record labels on board.* Having Disney also means the studios it owns, like Miramax.* There will be a healthy selection of films for a first start.
The iTMS didn't start with the largest library or all the record labels on board.* Having Disney also means the studios it owns, like Miramax.* There will be a healthy selection of films for a first start.
Full of Win
Oct 23, 05:11 PM
i grew up in woodside, and it seems like this house would be very out of place. i'm not saying i have anything against his simple house or anything, just that it doesnt fit in with the area.
hope he enjoys getting no signal out there...everytime i go back there my iphone drains it's battery in about an hour searching for signal
That is what Microcells and Sat Phones are for. That, or a Verizon iPhone.
hope he enjoys getting no signal out there...everytime i go back there my iphone drains it's battery in about an hour searching for signal
That is what Microcells and Sat Phones are for. That, or a Verizon iPhone.
TwinCities Dan
Apr 9, 12:05 PM
Beats
I hope you enjoy your purchase. :)
@SchneiderMan, please don't, we get it... :rolleyes:
I hope you enjoy your purchase. :)
@SchneiderMan, please don't, we get it... :rolleyes:
tscott467
Oct 6, 08:16 PM
It's a really good Verizon commercial, but going back to the fact that AT&T has a better network than Verizon? No way. If you mean better by having an overall slower 3G network, dropped calls, booted of the network, and having horrible coverage? Yeah then it's better. Apple would do alot better on Verizon's network due to the fact that Verizon's network can handle the MMS, and 100,000 iPhones using the same network in a square mile. AT&T, can't. They were so worried that the MMS would be too much for their network.
I love Apple, but not AT&T.
I love Apple, but not AT&T.
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.
miles01110
Apr 13, 06:37 AM
Don't know what is more ridiculous, the pat down of the little girl or the mother asking for a re-scan. I op out every single time I travel. It is not evident (and the TSA flunkies don't really know) whether a given device is a backscatter scanner or a an active or passive terahertz wave scanner. There is currently no long term evidence that backscatter or active terahertz wave scanners do not have side effects, especially for frequent travelers. Unless they switch all scanners to passive terahertz wave scanners, I will continue to opt out and if they ever make these scans mandatory without the opt out option, I will refuse to fly.
The radiation dosage from any properly maintained active scanner is still orders of magnitude less than what you get from a 4-hour flight at 10 km. Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
The radiation dosage from any properly maintained active scanner is still orders of magnitude less than what you get from a 4-hour flight at 10 km. Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
arn
Oct 11, 01:03 PM
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
I agree but you said
"Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2"
and, again, that's not the criteria.
Page 1 stories are generally more reliable than Page 2 stories... and that's true in this case but it's not a hard and fast rule. People get too hung up on Page 1 vs. Page 2. If a more unceratin rumor gets posted on Page 1, it is generally posted with caveats, as in this case.
arn
I agree but you said
"Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2"
and, again, that's not the criteria.
Page 1 stories are generally more reliable than Page 2 stories... and that's true in this case but it's not a hard and fast rule. People get too hung up on Page 1 vs. Page 2. If a more unceratin rumor gets posted on Page 1, it is generally posted with caveats, as in this case.
arn
Hastings101
May 3, 09:52 PM
And I'll buy one when it comes with dual fold-out screens in a**-kicking neon colors and a choice of animal stripes, lightning bolts or fire emblems, and is sold at Wal-mart in shrink-wrapped packaging for $9.99 and has commercials featuring hot girls in bikinis jumping on a trampoline.
In other words, we're both out of luck.
I would buy that. I would buy two of that.
In other words, we're both out of luck.
I would buy that. I would buy two of that.
Mac.World
Apr 16, 09:05 AM
Um if it wasn't for a gay man you might not be speaking English and the computer as we know it would likely not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but in December 1932, the Polish Cipher Bureau first broke Germany's Enigma ciphers. Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau gave Enigma-decryption techniques and equipment to French and British military intelligence.
So in reality, if it wasn't for the Polish, Turing wouldn't have had the techniques to continue the Enigma work during WWII. Not taking anything away from Turing, but don't pretend if it wasn't for this one man, we wouldn't be speaking English now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but in December 1932, the Polish Cipher Bureau first broke Germany's Enigma ciphers. Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau gave Enigma-decryption techniques and equipment to French and British military intelligence.
So in reality, if it wasn't for the Polish, Turing wouldn't have had the techniques to continue the Enigma work during WWII. Not taking anything away from Turing, but don't pretend if it wasn't for this one man, we wouldn't be speaking English now.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 6, 05:10 PM
If GM had listed the Volt for a good price they'd have a major hit on their hands. This way, it's just gonna die quietly, and then they'll complain about the world not being ready for hybrids. :rolleyes:
I doubt GM could have made the Volt much cheaper. Hybrids are as yet nowhere near as cheap as regular autos, and never will be, since they are inherently more complex. I hybrid requires between 1 and 4 electric motors plus the internal combustion engine. It requires both a fuel tank and a battery pack. It also requires a transmission that connects the electric motors to the wheels as well as the internal combustion engine (except in series hybrids of course). A regular ol' gas or diesel engined car needs only engine, transmission and fuel tank.
I doubt GM could have made the Volt much cheaper. Hybrids are as yet nowhere near as cheap as regular autos, and never will be, since they are inherently more complex. I hybrid requires between 1 and 4 electric motors plus the internal combustion engine. It requires both a fuel tank and a battery pack. It also requires a transmission that connects the electric motors to the wheels as well as the internal combustion engine (except in series hybrids of course). A regular ol' gas or diesel engined car needs only engine, transmission and fuel tank.
Rozee
Apr 15, 05:30 PM
I hope this is a fake.What is the long slot on the side? Is it a spot for a memory card?
iShater
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
takao
Jan 12, 09:13 AM
so far i haven't seen much from "os x " on the iPhone except widgets which is hardly something which defines OS X for me
what revolutionary things does it really have what others don't have ? eyecandy and perhaps easier syncing ? a proximity sensor ? perhaps photo managment and Wlan (but without VOIP)
does the iphone sync with outlook ? if not: say good bye to the business market
it's a nice product, don't get me wrong, but it's expensive for a phone
what revolutionary things does it really have what others don't have ? eyecandy and perhaps easier syncing ? a proximity sensor ? perhaps photo managment and Wlan (but without VOIP)
does the iphone sync with outlook ? if not: say good bye to the business market
it's a nice product, don't get me wrong, but it's expensive for a phone
nosen
Nov 25, 07:42 AM
Could someone please tell me what is thanksgiving, I have seen it being celebrated on many american television programs and I know it's got something to do with turkeys but they never seem to mention its origins. Also is it a national public holiday ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving#History_of_Thanksgiving_in_North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving#History_of_Thanksgiving_in_North_America
kdarling
Dec 13, 08:49 PM
Also, I don't imagine that AT&T & Apple signed a contract that had exclusivity expiring on December 26, 2010. It would make far more sense for a contract to be written that extends through the end of though some have even speculated it extends through 2012 (heaven help us and Apple if that's the case).
Summertime seems more likely.
We know that the original contract was signed in the Summer of 2006. (Five years from then would be Summer 2011.)
We know that an amended contract came almost exactly one year later (ATT said so), which dropped royalty payments and allowed subsidies.
Rumors say that a two year extension came in 2008.
Patent dispute documents brought up that there had been a five year contract at one time, but didn't mention whether it was still in force.
Summertime seems more likely.
We know that the original contract was signed in the Summer of 2006. (Five years from then would be Summer 2011.)
We know that an amended contract came almost exactly one year later (ATT said so), which dropped royalty payments and allowed subsidies.
Rumors say that a two year extension came in 2008.
Patent dispute documents brought up that there had been a five year contract at one time, but didn't mention whether it was still in force.
longsilver
Sep 12, 08:19 AM
Wow those analysts really are going out on a limb with those predictions.
Hmm a consumer electronics company will introduce comsumer electronics over time.. crazy crazy.. who would have thunk it
:rolleyes:
But it sounds so much better (and well paid) in corporatespeak:
...and going forward we'll see CE outrolls Q4/06 through Q1/07 with OEM rampings... yaddayaddayadda :)
Hmm a consumer electronics company will introduce comsumer electronics over time.. crazy crazy.. who would have thunk it
:rolleyes:
But it sounds so much better (and well paid) in corporatespeak:
...and going forward we'll see CE outrolls Q4/06 through Q1/07 with OEM rampings... yaddayaddayadda :)
840quadra
Nov 25, 05:52 PM
some kid in front of me in line brought in his old ipod for the ipod exchange program and got an additional discount on today's price. the 30gb ipod he got ended up being a little over $200. :rolleyes:
Really ? That's quite sad that he only got ~$28 for his old ipod! Broken iPods go for way more than that on ebay!
Really ? That's quite sad that he only got ~$28 for his old ipod! Broken iPods go for way more than that on ebay!
spencers
Apr 8, 02:10 PM
^^ Yup, in the E30! That's why I bought it after all: a cheap(er) easy to fix car that is predictable and balanced at its limit, even though that is relatively low compared to more modern suspension.
Oh darn, no preregister for you? If that didn't happen here, we'd have much too full of a day and less than 14 runs that we usually get. What are you going to bring to your event? Your 325Ci again? I LOVE the E46s....
Just curious though, can you go unstaggered wheel setup with the same size stock rears in the front? That's the only thing I don't care for on the E46.
Yes, my 325Ci. The car came with a square setup. 17x8" :) Guess I'm lucky!
14 runs is a lot!
Oh darn, no preregister for you? If that didn't happen here, we'd have much too full of a day and less than 14 runs that we usually get. What are you going to bring to your event? Your 325Ci again? I LOVE the E46s....
Just curious though, can you go unstaggered wheel setup with the same size stock rears in the front? That's the only thing I don't care for on the E46.
Yes, my 325Ci. The car came with a square setup. 17x8" :) Guess I'm lucky!
14 runs is a lot!
No comments:
Post a Comment