alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
elbirth
Oct 21, 11:53 AM
Big news. 2GB Mac Pro sticks now cost same as 1GB sticks per GB.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
mrblack927
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing. Command, which fills in for control in most cases, isn't in the "corners" (first and last keys in the bottom row) so instead of using my pinky + index finger for things like copy/paste, I had to get used to using thumb + index finger.
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
ksegel
Nov 10, 07:07 PM
I agree that it is mostly AT&T, don't get me wrong I love my iphone 3gs, but i have heard that there were issues for many people who were using 3gs and upgraded their phones, some had more dropped calls (which i seem to be having) and some had more serious problems.
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/ios_4_update_problems_plague_iphone_3g_users
I would love to get a I phone 4 and I'd love it if half the people who were using Iphones were on verizon so AT&T may actually be able to handle the usage on its network.
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/ios_4_update_problems_plague_iphone_3g_users
I would love to get a I phone 4 and I'd love it if half the people who were using Iphones were on verizon so AT&T may actually be able to handle the usage on its network.
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
sblasl
Oct 28, 02:16 PM
OK, so I now know what the potential capabilities of the new machines will have. If I look at the Apple Store and see the 3 current base options & price, when the release occurs, what is the speculation of choices & prices?
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.
maccompaq
Nov 10, 02:51 PM
I have the iphone 3gs, and at&t has never been able to get their act together with the iPhone but with the os upgrades service seems to keep getting worse.
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 09:56 AM
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
Okay, I watched the videos anyway . . . :):D :p Whatever, I was curious and they are the only one's I've seen in the past hour.
There's not one added feature that a student/hobbyist/professional or game changer shouldn't like.
Things like Magnetic Timeline would actually help an editor cut faster. I digress again.
Things like Magnetic Timeline however, COULD make certain tools like trim, roll, and slip not needed. I am sure they'll be in the palette, but no more trim --> highlight --> grab and move --> deselect. You just move the clip. I'd like to see that in more detail though, the video had it cut off.
Another example of what some may be talking about . . . Nesting and Compound clips. Nesting was nice, but terribly executed. Compound Clips ------>>>>>>> Nice!
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
Okay, I watched the videos anyway . . . :):D :p Whatever, I was curious and they are the only one's I've seen in the past hour.
There's not one added feature that a student/hobbyist/professional or game changer shouldn't like.
Things like Magnetic Timeline would actually help an editor cut faster. I digress again.
Things like Magnetic Timeline however, COULD make certain tools like trim, roll, and slip not needed. I am sure they'll be in the palette, but no more trim --> highlight --> grab and move --> deselect. You just move the clip. I'd like to see that in more detail though, the video had it cut off.
Another example of what some may be talking about . . . Nesting and Compound clips. Nesting was nice, but terribly executed. Compound Clips ------>>>>>>> Nice!
slinger1968
Oct 27, 02:39 AM
Yeah I'd love one too. A little pricey for a process since it's in the Extreme series though.I was thinking about the mainstream quadcore Kentsfield chips that will be released in Q1 07 but even an Extreme series 2.66GHz Kentsfield (~ $999) will be a lot cheaper than a 2 chip 2.66GHz Woodcrest ($715 x 2 @newegg).
I'd guess the mainstream 2.4GHz quad-core Kentsfield will be somewhere around $700, certainly cheaper than two 2.33GHz Woodcrest chips(I know this isn't currently an option on the Mac Pro) and probably about the same as two 2GHz Woodcrest chips.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217
Plus the chipset/motherboard and ram will be cheaper too.
By next spring/summer, just in time for CS3, Apple could reasonably sell a single chip quad-core Kentsfield towers for no more than $1999 but I don't think there's much of a chance it will happen. Too bad
I'd guess the mainstream 2.4GHz quad-core Kentsfield will be somewhere around $700, certainly cheaper than two 2.33GHz Woodcrest chips(I know this isn't currently an option on the Mac Pro) and probably about the same as two 2GHz Woodcrest chips.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217
Plus the chipset/motherboard and ram will be cheaper too.
By next spring/summer, just in time for CS3, Apple could reasonably sell a single chip quad-core Kentsfield towers for no more than $1999 but I don't think there's much of a chance it will happen. Too bad
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:08 AM
I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
I think it was a big mistake not to add a HD/TV-tuner/optical reader... THAT could be a killer. Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
fxtech
Apr 28, 08:16 AM
Next year you will see iPhones and iPods counted too. I mean you need to do all you can to make it look good to shareholders.
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
panzer06
Jun 19, 03:48 PM
In testing throughout the SE, I find I consistently get dropped calls when using my iphone on AT&T. Granted many are in areas with lots of trees or mountain roads, however, if I take the spare (non-iphone) still on AT&T I do not have the problem. iPhone dropped calls happen in strong signal or weak. We have two 3G and one 3GS. I truly believe there is something wrong in the iphone's voice circuitry. It is something we've learned to live with at home and work (where many co-workers have iphones).
Unless the CDMA technology employed by Verizon and Sprint is so different from GSM based carriers I imagine Verizon customers would experience the same poor service. Touting Verizon as the magic fix to these problems is foolish (unless GSM/iphone combo is the culprit) and people who switch to a Verizon iphone will most likely be disappointed. Additionally, even if a CDMA iphone was free of dropped calls, no one is going to keep that technology around for much longer.
Bashing AT&T is pointless. The problem is global. You can search google for iphone dropped calls in UK, AU, DE and any other country and find massive complaints and some lawsuits about iphones dropping calls.
What's remarkable is Apple's ability to sell millions upon millions of these devices and have people come to accept dropped calls as just an unfortunate by-product of having a superior application/web/data experience. The switch to texting, e-mail and social networks as primary communications outlets have made talking on the phone obsolete for many. Perhaps this is part of the reason such a serious problem has been pretty much ignored (even while the complaints continue) and sales of the iphone have grown.
Cheers,
Unless the CDMA technology employed by Verizon and Sprint is so different from GSM based carriers I imagine Verizon customers would experience the same poor service. Touting Verizon as the magic fix to these problems is foolish (unless GSM/iphone combo is the culprit) and people who switch to a Verizon iphone will most likely be disappointed. Additionally, even if a CDMA iphone was free of dropped calls, no one is going to keep that technology around for much longer.
Bashing AT&T is pointless. The problem is global. You can search google for iphone dropped calls in UK, AU, DE and any other country and find massive complaints and some lawsuits about iphones dropping calls.
What's remarkable is Apple's ability to sell millions upon millions of these devices and have people come to accept dropped calls as just an unfortunate by-product of having a superior application/web/data experience. The switch to texting, e-mail and social networks as primary communications outlets have made talking on the phone obsolete for many. Perhaps this is part of the reason such a serious problem has been pretty much ignored (even while the complaints continue) and sales of the iphone have grown.
Cheers,
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
gwangung
Apr 20, 07:05 PM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
blastvurt
Apr 28, 09:57 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
When you head to the lower end of the market in terms of price, the margins tend to get slimmer, when looking at Apple's pricing and product designs it suggests its not how they operate.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
When you head to the lower end of the market in terms of price, the margins tend to get slimmer, when looking at Apple's pricing and product designs it suggests its not how they operate.
jasonph
Apr 6, 03:55 AM
The biggest thing I miss is the ALT + <somekey> to open a menu keyboard shortcut.
What I don't miss. Windows (inc 7) is slower on the same hardware than OS X. It also thrashes the hard drive with its virtual memory use in comparison to OS X and some of it's file handling is laughable. Even XP was better than Win7. I run all sorts of PC's but you really need a lot of memory, a quad core CPU and a very fast drive for win 7 to give of it's best. Not so with Mac OS X, almost any of the Intel Mac's are fine for most jobs (with the exception of Final Cut Pro maybe!).
Also Stability wise OS X is much more stable than Windows and Apps rarely crash (with the exception of MS Office when it was first released!).
As with all things Microsoft they take an idea and turn it into bloatware! Almost every MS app I have used feels bloated even Office on the Mac :(
What I don't miss. Windows (inc 7) is slower on the same hardware than OS X. It also thrashes the hard drive with its virtual memory use in comparison to OS X and some of it's file handling is laughable. Even XP was better than Win7. I run all sorts of PC's but you really need a lot of memory, a quad core CPU and a very fast drive for win 7 to give of it's best. Not so with Mac OS X, almost any of the Intel Mac's are fine for most jobs (with the exception of Final Cut Pro maybe!).
Also Stability wise OS X is much more stable than Windows and Apps rarely crash (with the exception of MS Office when it was first released!).
As with all things Microsoft they take an idea and turn it into bloatware! Almost every MS app I have used feels bloated even Office on the Mac :(
Roy43
Oct 4, 09:52 PM
I had Verizon and live about 4000 feet from their tower. Got where I could not even get a decent call or receive one unless I stood outside and held the phone a certain way. Tried others phones, same problem. Had them check the tower, at least they said they did, no joy. So, I got AT&T phone, it worked in my yard in my computer room, worked in back of grocery store, so I switched to AT&T and never looked back! I occasionally get a dropped call, but so did I on Verizon, no worse on AT&T. Having worked at phone company for 35 plus years, I find it amazing that cell phones work as well as they do given low power used in them.
MoonDogg
Mar 18, 08:00 AM
My response to that TXT msg would be...
Did you know... I don't give a F|_|C|< !!!
and if you change my plan I will cancel my subscription and not pay a disconnect fee.... they may charge it... but I will never pay it.
I feel it is wrong to double charge someone for there data usage... It should not matter how you use your data... you paying for a certain amount and if you don't go over that then why should it matter. And to all of you that say there stealing something by tethering... there not... they paid for the data already... who are they hurting by using it on another device... no one... if at&t says they can't handle the network load then they need to upgrade there network.. or stop selling data capable phones. Oh and the thing about the unlimited plans... if its not unlimited... then don't say it is... that's false advertising... and I don't care about the fine print either.... they should not be allowed to advertise unlimited with out it being... umm.. well unlimited... and I know they don't offer it anymore... so if they want to get rid of it... when there current contract expires... take it away... done deal...
Before I get flamed to death here are some facts....
1. yes my iphone is jail-broke
2. no I don't tether... hell I only have the $15 plan and never go over it.
Did you know... I don't give a F|_|C|< !!!
and if you change my plan I will cancel my subscription and not pay a disconnect fee.... they may charge it... but I will never pay it.
I feel it is wrong to double charge someone for there data usage... It should not matter how you use your data... you paying for a certain amount and if you don't go over that then why should it matter. And to all of you that say there stealing something by tethering... there not... they paid for the data already... who are they hurting by using it on another device... no one... if at&t says they can't handle the network load then they need to upgrade there network.. or stop selling data capable phones. Oh and the thing about the unlimited plans... if its not unlimited... then don't say it is... that's false advertising... and I don't care about the fine print either.... they should not be allowed to advertise unlimited with out it being... umm.. well unlimited... and I know they don't offer it anymore... so if they want to get rid of it... when there current contract expires... take it away... done deal...
Before I get flamed to death here are some facts....
1. yes my iphone is jail-broke
2. no I don't tether... hell I only have the $15 plan and never go over it.
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:13 PM
How does Elgato not compete?
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Oh it's a competitor for sure, but doesn't measure up in terms of market and mind share. Can you do all of the above without interfacing with your computer? That's what I thought...
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Oh it's a competitor for sure, but doesn't measure up in terms of market and mind share. Can you do all of the above without interfacing with your computer? That's what I thought...
appleguy123
Apr 23, 04:06 PM
I believe in God or a higher power as some would call it.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:58 PM
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
yg17
Mar 26, 09:27 AM
And all this coming from the organization who protects a bunch of child rapists. Why are people taking them seriously anymore?
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:35 PM
I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a smaller PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.
You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.
You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.
