fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
tigress666
Apr 10, 01:08 PM
Honestly, I think what will be a major deciding factor on how well the iphone/android does against dedicated handhelds is how many developers decide to also put their games on the iphone/android as well as how many very good and unique to the handheld game the handhelds get (basically can these people deciding if they are also going to buy a handheld on top of their smartphone still play the games they want on their smartphone even if it isn't as good as an experience on the hand held? I think many people might decide it's not worth buying that extra handheld long as they can get the games they want to play on the device they already have. And that there aren't games that entice them to get the handheld that they can't get on their smartphone).
I don't think a 3D screen is going to make a big difference more than just game availability (for example the 3d screen is neat to look at, but I wouldn't buy the 3Ds for that. I'm more likely to be enticed by the new Sony hand held coming out as I suspect it more likely will attract the games I want to play. So far I'm less than impressed with the games out on the 3Ds. And I know I"m very disappointed in the type of games Nintendo tends to attract. My mom gave me her wii and I still haven't found a game I want to buy for it :( ). I think having some really good games that you can't get on the smartphones will be what convinces people that it is worth it to buy that extra device.
But in the end, when talking about gaming systems, it doesn't matter how good your hardware is, the most important deciding factor is games available. You could have the best hardware in the world, the best designed controller, the prettiest screen, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if you can't attract a good amount of *good* games.
I don't think a 3D screen is going to make a big difference more than just game availability (for example the 3d screen is neat to look at, but I wouldn't buy the 3Ds for that. I'm more likely to be enticed by the new Sony hand held coming out as I suspect it more likely will attract the games I want to play. So far I'm less than impressed with the games out on the 3Ds. And I know I"m very disappointed in the type of games Nintendo tends to attract. My mom gave me her wii and I still haven't found a game I want to buy for it :( ). I think having some really good games that you can't get on the smartphones will be what convinces people that it is worth it to buy that extra device.
But in the end, when talking about gaming systems, it doesn't matter how good your hardware is, the most important deciding factor is games available. You could have the best hardware in the world, the best designed controller, the prettiest screen, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if you can't attract a good amount of *good* games.
desdomg
Mar 20, 04:52 PM
Glad you are having fun. Many would argue that the it is the music industry that is doing the pillaging and it is the consumers pockets that are being raided. Legal and right are not always the same things. How come there is no competition in song pricing anyway?
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
munkery
May 2, 01:02 PM
As with all malware that doesn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation, this will not be very widespread or successful.
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
tkatz
Apr 9, 06:38 AM
LOL because swinging a wand or jumping around in front of a webcam is so hardcore.:rolleyes:
I was thinking the same thing. "In my day" a hardcore gamer was someone that custom built a gaming rig consisting of no less then 2 graphics cards (add a third and get SLI + PhysX), each costing at least if not more then a single PS3, the most expensive 'extreme' cpu they could find, and a small nuclear power plant for a PSU, then boasting about their 3D Mark scores.
I used to do this. Damn what a waste of time and money.
(ok, so I shoved a second 5870HD [XFX] into my 2010 Mac Pro for when I do play games... though it was more to see how well it worked in crossfire mode then anything else. Crysis 2 actually plays fine [and looks great] on max settings w/ the single card)
I was thinking the same thing. "In my day" a hardcore gamer was someone that custom built a gaming rig consisting of no less then 2 graphics cards (add a third and get SLI + PhysX), each costing at least if not more then a single PS3, the most expensive 'extreme' cpu they could find, and a small nuclear power plant for a PSU, then boasting about their 3D Mark scores.
I used to do this. Damn what a waste of time and money.
(ok, so I shoved a second 5870HD [XFX] into my 2010 Mac Pro for when I do play games... though it was more to see how well it worked in crossfire mode then anything else. Crysis 2 actually plays fine [and looks great] on max settings w/ the single card)
coder12
Mar 18, 11:59 AM
I smell a lawsuit against AT&T coming along!
Man4allsea
Feb 17, 12:17 AM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:51 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
sigamy
Jul 12, 01:58 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
G58
Oct 8, 03:32 AM
Three questions:
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 09:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Gotta agree with you there. Im sure they get bullied like everyone else, but I remember in high school an experience where I was harassed and picked on, beat up, hit in the head with a chair, etc, etc, and the administration did nothing. I was bigger than this guy, but I really didn't want to fight him, violence doesn't solve violence, finally the principal gave him a warning, which he laughed about.
You know, while I'm loathe to actually suggest violence, the few times I actually did hit someone it really had a profound effect. In one instance I actually was on friendly terms with the bully after I socked him in the nose.
Not saying this should be encouraged, but it's an interesting insight. Some bullies were sadistic and cruel and sick, no doubt. But I wonder if there isn't some instinct to "test" you out, to see if you're worthy to tag along on the caribou hunt or something... and you get a little respect back when you prove yourself with a little friendly violence.
Gotta agree with you there. Im sure they get bullied like everyone else, but I remember in high school an experience where I was harassed and picked on, beat up, hit in the head with a chair, etc, etc, and the administration did nothing. I was bigger than this guy, but I really didn't want to fight him, violence doesn't solve violence, finally the principal gave him a warning, which he laughed about.
You know, while I'm loathe to actually suggest violence, the few times I actually did hit someone it really had a profound effect. In one instance I actually was on friendly terms with the bully after I socked him in the nose.
Not saying this should be encouraged, but it's an interesting insight. Some bullies were sadistic and cruel and sick, no doubt. But I wonder if there isn't some instinct to "test" you out, to see if you're worthy to tag along on the caribou hunt or something... and you get a little respect back when you prove yourself with a little friendly violence.
MacsAttack
Sep 29, 05:15 AM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
you obviously must not know very many gay people, personally. This lifestyle does not come without baggage and high-priced trade offs. Anyone who says there's no inconveniences and struggles with being gay/lesbian is full ****.
Umm… sweetheart… I am a 47yo gay man (married).
I think most of your problems lie within. Self-hate is not the way forward.
Umm… sweetheart… I am a 47yo gay man (married).
I think most of your problems lie within. Self-hate is not the way forward.
SMM
Oct 21, 12:52 PM
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
Absolutely agree. It must be exciting to be an EE working on this stuff right now. So many options to explore. How would you design a memory bus which would be dynamic enough to adjust for a doubling of processors? If you had a fixed, known number of processors, the design is straight-forward. But, the new multi-core design is not something they have had to deal with before. I wonder how they will do it?
Absolutely agree. It must be exciting to be an EE working on this stuff right now. So many options to explore. How would you design a memory bus which would be dynamic enough to adjust for a doubling of processors? If you had a fixed, known number of processors, the design is straight-forward. But, the new multi-core design is not something they have had to deal with before. I wonder how they will do it?
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
Mooey
Apr 9, 03:42 AM
The delusion is this thread is hilarious. I'm seeing little casual gamers saying that Nintendo should be bought out, that Sony and Microsoft are doomed because their consoles are cheap on eBay because of device malfunctions (like Apple computers / handhelds don't?), and people claiming that touchscreens are going to replace the buttons for controllers sooner or later.
Your opinions are nice, but you're a casual gamer. The closet thing you've probably touched as far as hardcore gaming goes is Plants vs Zombies.
Until I start seeing games like Uncharted 3, God of War, Halo, Fallout, etc. on an iOS device, you guys can continue keeping me entertained.
Your opinions are nice, but you're a casual gamer. The closet thing you've probably touched as far as hardcore gaming goes is Plants vs Zombies.
Until I start seeing games like Uncharted 3, God of War, Halo, Fallout, etc. on an iOS device, you guys can continue keeping me entertained.
ChazUK
Apr 28, 08:15 AM
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it.
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
citizenzen
Mar 28, 09:56 AM
If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it.
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 04:10 PM
I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
WilliamBos
Apr 14, 05:34 PM
After getting a new mini for my b-day, I have to wait until tomorrow to use it, as I need the apple only DVI-VGA adapter. Aftermarket stuff don't work... :(
Povilas
Oct 7, 02:14 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
For me Objective-C is user-friendly enough.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
For me Objective-C is user-friendly enough.
carmenodie
Mar 18, 08:14 AM
I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
Don't panic
Mar 14, 05:10 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
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.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
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.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
Cyrax
Apr 6, 01:32 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.