shartypants
Sep 14, 09:03 AM
And I hold strong on not renewing my magazine subscription!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
milo
Sep 6, 01:45 PM
Terrified to see that my MBP's 1.83 Ghz Core Duo is now in Apple's lowest line of computers... It does what I need it to, but it must be worth half the value it was 6 months ago ($1,999.99). Even more terrified that my ex got a black MB that has a better processor then mine. And she only uses it for papers and chatting! :eek:
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
NameUndecided
Apr 3, 08:59 PM
In DP1, when fullscreen Safari was working proper for me, I just setup a keyboard shortcut to hide and unhide the address bar/toolbar when needed. Command+apostrophe. Not a big deal at all.
Edit: Just in case anyone doesn't know how and wants to: http://lifehacker.com/#!343328/create-a-keyboard-shortcut-for-any-menu-action-in-any-program
Edit: Just in case anyone doesn't know how and wants to: http://lifehacker.com/#!343328/create-a-keyboard-shortcut-for-any-menu-action-in-any-program
SuperCachetes
Mar 2, 08:24 PM
I started a thread about the new Passat and Jetta a little while back. Basically, the new Jetta is bigger, costs less, and uses cheaper materials. People expecting Golf-like levels of refinement and build quality will be disappointed.
And it went from looking like nothing else to looking like everything else.
I don't find it ugly, necessarily, but when I see one, I always think "Corolla!" - until I get closer, and then I think "Kia!"
And it went from looking like nothing else to looking like everything else.
I don't find it ugly, necessarily, but when I see one, I always think "Corolla!" - until I get closer, and then I think "Kia!"
Lord Blackadder
Mar 12, 11:24 PM
Do you think GM would confirm an internet report of a diesel Cruze coming? Unless it comes from themselves, they won't confirm anything.
True. So far it's mostly rumor - the only thing we can be reasonably sure about is that GM is considering the idea of bringing the diesel here. Whether it will actually happen is still anybody's guess.
True. So far it's mostly rumor - the only thing we can be reasonably sure about is that GM is considering the idea of bringing the diesel here. Whether it will actually happen is still anybody's guess.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 01:12 PM
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
Queso
Jul 19, 04:47 PM
Interesting comment from the conference call is that only 39% of Apple sales are now international. That was 50% not too long ago.
Based on that, the rise in Mac sales is almost exlusively US-based. If they can repeat that success in Japan, Europe etc., we could be looking at a lot more Mac sales every quarter.
Based on that, the rise in Mac sales is almost exlusively US-based. If they can repeat that success in Japan, Europe etc., we could be looking at a lot more Mac sales every quarter.
peharri
Jul 18, 09:32 AM
...but why on Earth would Jobs announce this at a developer's conference?
WWDC showcases the new hardware and software, but this isn't either, it's a product of little or no interest to developers. It's the wrong audience.
A more realistic possibility is a seperate, unrelated, keynote. The iTunes Music Store was announced at a special event, and I'd imagine any "movie download service" would be announced similarly.
I don't think the idea is impossible. I can see a $5 fixed fee thing working quite well, with $1 going to Apple to cover their operating costs. They can probably get an hour or so of moderate, better-then-VHS-resolution, quality for 100 megabytes if they choose a reasonable codec. The system probably fits Apple better than a selling system, where questions like "I can burn my music to CD, how come I can't burn my movies to DVD" will be asked. The major issue I can forsee though is that most of us want to watch movies on a large screen. Most Mac users don't really have anything that would work for that. Perhaps a little, cheap, Firewire widget that does TV out should be in Apple's future.
WWDC showcases the new hardware and software, but this isn't either, it's a product of little or no interest to developers. It's the wrong audience.
A more realistic possibility is a seperate, unrelated, keynote. The iTunes Music Store was announced at a special event, and I'd imagine any "movie download service" would be announced similarly.
I don't think the idea is impossible. I can see a $5 fixed fee thing working quite well, with $1 going to Apple to cover their operating costs. They can probably get an hour or so of moderate, better-then-VHS-resolution, quality for 100 megabytes if they choose a reasonable codec. The system probably fits Apple better than a selling system, where questions like "I can burn my music to CD, how come I can't burn my movies to DVD" will be asked. The major issue I can forsee though is that most of us want to watch movies on a large screen. Most Mac users don't really have anything that would work for that. Perhaps a little, cheap, Firewire widget that does TV out should be in Apple's future.
RayLancer
Sep 30, 08:37 PM
Those clear cases are pretty bad. They don't fit my iPod Touches at all. Shame I wasted $6 on them ($3 x 2). Any recommendation guys?
Eidorian
Aug 25, 12:09 PM
CPU temp is a result of how efficient the heat dissipation is relative to the heat generated by the CPU... so without knowing how the heat dissipation capabilities varied between the two systems you cannot make much of a judgement on the CPU itself.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
zeppiecr
Nov 30, 08:20 AM
why not put a bluray in the itv?
TheFlashGuy
Jun 22, 04:28 PM
To paraphrase - "It's just a giant iPad!"
copykris
Nov 25, 02:12 PM
They're just ****ing sunglasses...
haha
so true
haha
so true
Thirdeye9
Apr 22, 11:02 AM
Ipod touch with a storage of classic... But then we say classic good bye :(
I think apple made mistake calling an Ipod touch - Ipod :) they should call this staff - Itouch :D and there would no be anny problem. Because both machines wouldn't compete with each other and there wouldn't be any discussion which one is better - they would be just different apple staff. And "classic" wouldn't be considered as something old and out of fashion but would sit on his throne of best and timeless mp3 player on market :)
Now if they want turn classic on his road they have to call him "holly grahl of sound" :D and of course improve it a bit.
I think apple made mistake calling an Ipod touch - Ipod :) they should call this staff - Itouch :D and there would no be anny problem. Because both machines wouldn't compete with each other and there wouldn't be any discussion which one is better - they would be just different apple staff. And "classic" wouldn't be considered as something old and out of fashion but would sit on his throne of best and timeless mp3 player on market :)
Now if they want turn classic on his road they have to call him "holly grahl of sound" :D and of course improve it a bit.
gmcalpin
Jun 23, 08:29 AM
One thing I'd like to see is a stylus that can be used with this & an iPad. Before I get flamed, hear me out. It wouldn't be just stylus only. It'll work just the way it is with your fingers, but also use a stylus for fine work like a painting/drawing program. Some people have bulky fingers that are too imprecise for drawing.
I agree, but I don't think the current screens in iPhones or iPads can register something as small as a real stylus point.
Maybe not, but all third-party styluses for iPhones and iPads so far have been the size of a pencil eraser (or a sausage � literally), and I can't imagine that's what they started with.
Sooner or later, I expect Apple to put some amount of pressure-sensitivity into future iPads or iPhones, one way or another, though, and their utility as drawing devices will increase dramatically.
I agree, but I don't think the current screens in iPhones or iPads can register something as small as a real stylus point.
Maybe not, but all third-party styluses for iPhones and iPads so far have been the size of a pencil eraser (or a sausage � literally), and I can't imagine that's what they started with.
Sooner or later, I expect Apple to put some amount of pressure-sensitivity into future iPads or iPhones, one way or another, though, and their utility as drawing devices will increase dramatically.
bwintx
Jul 20, 06:58 AM
I bet that Vista will run on several year old machines. You might not get all the bells and whistles, but I don't have all the bells and whistles of Tiger on this Mac Mini of mine either. And since just about all OEM's wil preload Vista on their machines, the sales-numbers will be HUGE. And then we have those who upgrade their existing machines.
You are correct. Existing PCs will run Vista but without the Aqua-ripoff pretty interface. For the Aqua-ripoff (I refuse to call it anything else), that's where much more RAM and newer video cards come into play by necessity. So, essentially, you get two classes of Vista users (imagine having to write the "requirements" text for Windows software in the near-future; ugh), and a giant opportunity for the memory and video card companies, which are probably buying their magazine and Web banner ad space right now -- not that anybody should alert the media for such info.
You are correct. Existing PCs will run Vista but without the Aqua-ripoff pretty interface. For the Aqua-ripoff (I refuse to call it anything else), that's where much more RAM and newer video cards come into play by necessity. So, essentially, you get two classes of Vista users (imagine having to write the "requirements" text for Windows software in the near-future; ugh), and a giant opportunity for the memory and video card companies, which are probably buying their magazine and Web banner ad space right now -- not that anybody should alert the media for such info.
Warbrain
Aug 6, 09:20 PM
Looks like I'll be taking my lunch break at 1PM tomorrow:p
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
popelife
Jan 2, 03:35 PM
Since Intel is releasing the 2.0 Ghz C2Q chip this week, it seems likely to find its way into an iTV and/or iMac device. That's four cores on the cheap.
Rocketman
I see where you're coming from, but I believe the processor in the current iMacs is the laptop Merom C2D, which is why the iMac tops out at 2.33GHz, and the FSB is 667MHz. TDP for most Meroms is 35W.
The Core 2 Quad is a desktop processor, with a TDP more like 80-100W. So not suitable for the iMac without a big redesign.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Wasn't aware there's a 2.0GHz version of C2Q...
Rocketman
I see where you're coming from, but I believe the processor in the current iMacs is the laptop Merom C2D, which is why the iMac tops out at 2.33GHz, and the FSB is 667MHz. TDP for most Meroms is 35W.
The Core 2 Quad is a desktop processor, with a TDP more like 80-100W. So not suitable for the iMac without a big redesign.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Wasn't aware there's a 2.0GHz version of C2Q...
GreatestDane
Jan 30, 07:53 AM
I can't imagine many thieves break into cars to try to steal a built-in navigation system that is in full view on the car's dashboard though.
Maybe not in the US, but in Denmark built-in navigation costs in the region of 10000$ (I don't know how much it is in America), and if you see a car with it, you immediately think: "those people have money.", and if a thief (burglar?) thinks so to he is more likely to steal (from) your car.
Maybe not in the US, but in Denmark built-in navigation costs in the region of 10000$ (I don't know how much it is in America), and if you see a car with it, you immediately think: "those people have money.", and if a thief (burglar?) thinks so to he is more likely to steal (from) your car.
NameUndecided
Apr 3, 01:01 AM
It worked for me too on DP1. On DP2, I had to install Snow Leopard first.
Ooh. Thought you were talking about the installs for both previews. I installed developer preview 2 over the first, so I didn't realize. It still doesn't sound very accurate to me.
Forgive me -- this is what I'm understanding from you:
DP1 can install onto a blank disk/partition.
DP2 can't install on a blank disk/partition. Needs to install as an update on top of DP 1 or Snow Leopard. (?)
Ooh. Thought you were talking about the installs for both previews. I installed developer preview 2 over the first, so I didn't realize. It still doesn't sound very accurate to me.
Forgive me -- this is what I'm understanding from you:
DP1 can install onto a blank disk/partition.
DP2 can't install on a blank disk/partition. Needs to install as an update on top of DP 1 or Snow Leopard. (?)
sjp5317
Mar 23, 09:11 AM
I wonder if they'd give a revamped Classic Airplay capabilities... in addition to being the pocket media player we all know and love make it an addition to your other devices as a bulk mobile storage capable of pushing audio/video out to Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc. I'd buy another one then. I mean, I have a terabyte Toshiba drive that i carry in my laptop case, but that requires the USB cable. Who wants to dongle their drive?
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
apb3
Aug 16, 11:47 AM
Not hard for Apple to stop this with something like a digital signature allowing your pod to only sync with your library
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ... and not as easy as you make it seem. Also, I think this may iimpact one of the features I use most, Lib sharing at home.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Shared music libs already address this. And again, the cost/benefit analysis of what we need to expend to do this power-wise, price-wise, PR-wise, etc... (in my opinion) just don't cut it.
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ... and not as easy as you make it seem. Also, I think this may iimpact one of the features I use most, Lib sharing at home.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Shared music libs already address this. And again, the cost/benefit analysis of what we need to expend to do this power-wise, price-wise, PR-wise, etc... (in my opinion) just don't cut it.
4God
Sep 1, 12:17 PM
I dunno, I think Apple would include support for a dual link dvi with upgraded graphics card so you could attach a 30" Apple Cinema display. I think this would happen before introducing a 23" iMac IMHO.
No comments:
Post a Comment