entatlrg
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's just another way of the 'stronger minded' to power and control the 'weaker minded' in the world. That's it.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 09:00 AM
I think AppleInsider is slightly wrong on this.
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
more...
Cromulent
Apr 24, 10:13 AM
No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
rorschach
Mar 18, 01:56 AM
I use HandyLight to tether, but only occasionally. I wonder if they can detect that. I don't know what method the jailbreak way uses.
more...
rasmasyean
Mar 12, 03:34 AM
What the hell? Why doesn't the wind blow it into China instead??? :D
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
more...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:41 AM
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
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!
tveric
Mar 18, 04:58 PM
I would just like to point out that, sort of, this thread and topic are a repeat of this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
more...
peharri
Sep 21, 03:04 PM
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 9, 09:46 AM
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
All of that is true but my point is regarding the future. Nintendo and Sony are sitting ducks if they continue their current strategy. You are 100% correct, both have legacy customer to support the sales of new platform titles. However, that is going to fade as a new generation grows up on iOS, not Nintendo or Sony, portable gaming.
Nintendo DS is to Blackberry what Blackberry was to 2006. It's only personal observation, but the preteen and even pre-pre teen set I see now has iPod touches, not the Gameboys or DSes of carried in my gen, as the preferred device. A lot of that has to do with Apple, but more so with the price of games.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
All of that is true but my point is regarding the future. Nintendo and Sony are sitting ducks if they continue their current strategy. You are 100% correct, both have legacy customer to support the sales of new platform titles. However, that is going to fade as a new generation grows up on iOS, not Nintendo or Sony, portable gaming.
Nintendo DS is to Blackberry what Blackberry was to 2006. It's only personal observation, but the preteen and even pre-pre teen set I see now has iPod touches, not the Gameboys or DSes of carried in my gen, as the preferred device. A lot of that has to do with Apple, but more so with the price of games.
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:35 PM
I wish I could leave. Macrumors is to the GPA what the bug zapper is to the fly.
Capt Underpants
Jul 12, 12:08 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)
Oded S.
I'm sticking to my belief that the iMacs will get Merom.
We'll soon see...
Oded S.
I'm sticking to my belief that the iMacs will get Merom.
We'll soon see...
more...
ddtlm
Oct 12, 05:31 PM
JustAGuy:
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 07:26 PM
When your moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature are bigoted and wrong, yes, we will attack you. Get used to it because that is the direction the world is moving, like it or not.
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
more...
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?
more...
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:14 PM
Thread topic reminds me of:
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:21 PM
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
more...
javajedi
Oct 8, 05:22 PM
Sorry about the rant earlier, but I had to address Backtothemac's logical fallacies.
I always tell people if you want to make an argument for the Mac, make it in software. Despite XP being rock solid, in my opinion it lacks the passion of 10. Everytime I turn on my Mac I can feel the amount of passion that was put into it, and think passion is a very important quality. Without passion you are doomed. This becomes obvious when you compare something like compare Windows Media Player (even 9 beta) to iTunes. I'm not going to go into details but IMO, there is no comparison. This is why we use Macintosh.
Passion is clearly Apple's best strength. Microsoft still has a long way to go in this, but they are starting to learn, too.
I always tell people if you want to make an argument for the Mac, make it in software. Despite XP being rock solid, in my opinion it lacks the passion of 10. Everytime I turn on my Mac I can feel the amount of passion that was put into it, and think passion is a very important quality. Without passion you are doomed. This becomes obvious when you compare something like compare Windows Media Player (even 9 beta) to iTunes. I'm not going to go into details but IMO, there is no comparison. This is why we use Macintosh.
Passion is clearly Apple's best strength. Microsoft still has a long way to go in this, but they are starting to learn, too.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 03:16 PM
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
That's what I mean by tin foil hats... it really isn't bad for you, unless you're getting mutliple does every day. This is why the technician stands behind shielding... without it their average exposure would be astronomical, consider the math alone. Lets say a technician gives 20 x-rays in one day... you can do it from here.
Did you even read what I posted? You may believe in the linear no threshold model (which you clearly do), but if people in Denver Colorado get 1000 mrem a year and statistically have no ill effects, how can you even say that? An xray clearly isn't bad for you. At all. You get at least 310 mrem of exposure from the environment itself yearly. Also, do you know about biological systems at all? If you did, you'd realize that radiation exposure isn't that bad, and that genetic repair is incredibly commonplace.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
Unfortunately, I have the same distrust issue as you do, with the only difference being me not trusting most news media for scientific facts and extrapolations. Many so called "experts" called on for media usually are highly political or vocal people usually removed from day to day science, and typically have an agenda of some sort. Like you, I don't trust the Japanese government entirely either.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own. No sense yelling fire if there isn't one. I'm not saying that there won't ever be issues, just that I believe that there isn't a major issue right now (and if they were up to par on safety features, we shouldn't have even gotten this far).
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
The reason I say if is because there's no proof either way. Everyone's speculating right now; no one has access to the core. The core temperature sensors aren't working. It could be a partial meltdown, it could not be. Nevertheless, as long as it remains contained, there wont be a safety issue. Remember that BWRs generate heat even with the control rods; if one of those rods became damaged, heat output would increase.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it. I fully understand the lack in confidence you feel; it never should have gotten to the boric acid seawater. That said, they should have had multiple redundant systems for backup generators, as is required in many places. Furthermore, since the rest of their grid is up, why don't they have an electric pump there? The military has large industrial grade pumps...
See, this event doesn't scream the lack of nuclear safety to me, it screams the lack of proper handling and maintenance of basic safety protocols. With systems in place elsewhere in the world, this never would have gotten this far.
That's what I mean by tin foil hats... it really isn't bad for you, unless you're getting mutliple does every day. This is why the technician stands behind shielding... without it their average exposure would be astronomical, consider the math alone. Lets say a technician gives 20 x-rays in one day... you can do it from here.
Did you even read what I posted? You may believe in the linear no threshold model (which you clearly do), but if people in Denver Colorado get 1000 mrem a year and statistically have no ill effects, how can you even say that? An xray clearly isn't bad for you. At all. You get at least 310 mrem of exposure from the environment itself yearly. Also, do you know about biological systems at all? If you did, you'd realize that radiation exposure isn't that bad, and that genetic repair is incredibly commonplace.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
Unfortunately, I have the same distrust issue as you do, with the only difference being me not trusting most news media for scientific facts and extrapolations. Many so called "experts" called on for media usually are highly political or vocal people usually removed from day to day science, and typically have an agenda of some sort. Like you, I don't trust the Japanese government entirely either.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own. No sense yelling fire if there isn't one. I'm not saying that there won't ever be issues, just that I believe that there isn't a major issue right now (and if they were up to par on safety features, we shouldn't have even gotten this far).
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
The reason I say if is because there's no proof either way. Everyone's speculating right now; no one has access to the core. The core temperature sensors aren't working. It could be a partial meltdown, it could not be. Nevertheless, as long as it remains contained, there wont be a safety issue. Remember that BWRs generate heat even with the control rods; if one of those rods became damaged, heat output would increase.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it. I fully understand the lack in confidence you feel; it never should have gotten to the boric acid seawater. That said, they should have had multiple redundant systems for backup generators, as is required in many places. Furthermore, since the rest of their grid is up, why don't they have an electric pump there? The military has large industrial grade pumps...
See, this event doesn't scream the lack of nuclear safety to me, it screams the lack of proper handling and maintenance of basic safety protocols. With systems in place elsewhere in the world, this never would have gotten this far.
more...
skunk
Mar 14, 05:41 PM
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.Haven't we screwed with the oceans long enough?
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distanceDC power lines. Edison would approve.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distanceDC power lines. Edison would approve.
more...
javajedi
Oct 11, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
more...
more...
more...
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 15, 11:13 PM
my guess is it is going to come down to them fillings the chamber with concrete
more...
yg17
Mar 24, 07:20 PM
Awww....boo ****ing hoo.
more...
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 04:29 PM
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
And according to many Republicans, Americans are entitled to conspicuous consumption. It is as American as apple pie.
And according to many Republicans, Americans are entitled to conspicuous consumption. It is as American as apple pie.
more...
