Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
ikir
Mar 25, 03:03 AM
Happy Birthday OS X!!! You're my favorite OS:apple:
MacRumors
Oct 10, 04:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
raleigh1208
Nov 24, 01:28 PM
As noted above, even with the Apple discount today on .mac, since you pay sales tax you'll be better off purchasing it on Amazon. I saw an even better deal on buy.com, where you can buy .mac for $62.77 if you use Google checkout ($20 off $50 deal). The current Google Checkout deal is a good deal if buy.com has your item in stock. The discount is $20 off $50 or $10 off $30 purchases, and you can use it multiple times, if you checkout your items separately.
124151155
Apr 16, 11:58 PM
If I lived in the states, I'd just buy it outright (Sign up then cancel) and move to a real carrier.
In Australia you can buy iPhones outright from apple, unlocked. I'll probably be doing that.
In Australia you can buy iPhones outright from apple, unlocked. I'll probably be doing that.
andyblac
Aug 7, 04:04 PM
the specs for the UK model has NOT been updated UK Specs (http://www.apple.com/uk/displays/specs.html) compared to the US model US Specs (http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html)
conradzoo
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
The Netherlands store is down too. :o
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 06:11 PM
What does that teach the students about LGBT people?
Perhaps Wiki might offer more 'significant' learning opportunities? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people
Perhaps Wiki might offer more 'significant' learning opportunities? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people
demallien
Oct 4, 02:11 AM
I actually work as a programmer for a DRM provider. Here's what our legal wonks have told us with regards to the DCMA:
1) If we want our player to be able to read files protected by a competitor's DRM, we are entitled to do so. This means that if we had a new iPod-killing mp3 player, we would be legally within our rights to reverse engineer iTunes to crack the DRM, and then re-implement the same algorithm in our own player (it would have to be cleanroom reverse engineering of course, but that's for IP reasons, not the DCMA)
2) However, our player must not give the user more rights than the original player. So, we can't provide an option to rip to mp3 for example. All we can really offer is another player, or, at the absolute limit, a convertor that removes FairPlay DRM, and replaces it with ours (or another provider's). The new DRM should provide exactly the same restrictions on copying/transferring of files as the original. The legal eagles tell us that this last bit is really a bit too grey at the moment to be safe, so we would be better off restricting ourselves to just a player.
This of course makes liars of all those people that spread FUD about the DCMA and DRM in general. All DRM is crackable, and the provisions in the DCMA make it legal to do so, if the reason for doing so does not infringe fair-use....
1) If we want our player to be able to read files protected by a competitor's DRM, we are entitled to do so. This means that if we had a new iPod-killing mp3 player, we would be legally within our rights to reverse engineer iTunes to crack the DRM, and then re-implement the same algorithm in our own player (it would have to be cleanroom reverse engineering of course, but that's for IP reasons, not the DCMA)
2) However, our player must not give the user more rights than the original player. So, we can't provide an option to rip to mp3 for example. All we can really offer is another player, or, at the absolute limit, a convertor that removes FairPlay DRM, and replaces it with ours (or another provider's). The new DRM should provide exactly the same restrictions on copying/transferring of files as the original. The legal eagles tell us that this last bit is really a bit too grey at the moment to be safe, so we would be better off restricting ourselves to just a player.
This of course makes liars of all those people that spread FUD about the DCMA and DRM in general. All DRM is crackable, and the provisions in the DCMA make it legal to do so, if the reason for doing so does not infringe fair-use....
mac-er
Jan 8, 08:46 PM
Thin Macbook, Movie Rental, Announcement of 5 million iPhones sold
ulbador
Apr 26, 09:59 AM
The point dejo was trying to make, is that you are missing a VERY basic Objective C (well, any language really) fundamental.
This:
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*)timer
does NOT create an object.
It's simply a map to say "When I call this method, I will pass in an existing timer object". It is still your responsibility to allocate/initialize a timer and then pass that into your method. Simply using the selector as you are doing wouldn't accomplish this.
At some point you would have to do something like:
[self cancelIt:MyExistingAndValidTimerObject];
This:
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*)timer
does NOT create an object.
It's simply a map to say "When I call this method, I will pass in an existing timer object". It is still your responsibility to allocate/initialize a timer and then pass that into your method. Simply using the selector as you are doing wouldn't accomplish this.
At some point you would have to do something like:
[self cancelIt:MyExistingAndValidTimerObject];
iJohnHenry
Apr 12, 07:02 PM
Incredible.
I wonder if they followed this abomination up with a full body cavity search?
Who the **** is in charge of the U.S. of A.? Xenophobes??
I wonder if they followed this abomination up with a full body cavity search?
Who the **** is in charge of the U.S. of A.? Xenophobes??
Thinine
Apr 29, 03:53 PM
Finally, Apple has made a significant change to one of the first user interface changes observed (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/25/mac-os-x-lion-notes-ios-scroll-bars-any-corner-resizing-dock-changes/) way back in October when Apple first demoed Mac OS X Lion: iOS-style scrollbars. Initial builds of Mac OS X Lion had featured scrollbars that overlaid the window's comments, appearing only when necessary and then disappearing after a brief period of time.
Apple has done away with that concept, returning to fixed scrollbars (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/163551-lion_scrollbar_non_overlay.jpg) along the right side of each window, although they do retain the dark iOS-like appearance. The refined scrollbars are present at all times and do not disappear after use.
No they haven't. Fading is now a user preference. You can have them fade automatically, stay all the time, or fade according to your input device.
Apple has done away with that concept, returning to fixed scrollbars (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/163551-lion_scrollbar_non_overlay.jpg) along the right side of each window, although they do retain the dark iOS-like appearance. The refined scrollbars are present at all times and do not disappear after use.
No they haven't. Fading is now a user preference. You can have them fade automatically, stay all the time, or fade according to your input device.
superfula
Apr 29, 06:54 PM
NT 4 and Windows 95/98 don't use the same kernel at all. They might share the GUI sub-system (actually, it's called the Win32 sub-system, which is probably what Windows Team blog is referring when referring to API versions, since Win32 is the Windows API) (and yes, I know the 64 bit version is called Win64, just like the 16 bit version was called Win16), but they do not share the same architecture/kernel at all, which Smitty inferred. So no, Smitty wasn't right at all, is use of the word kernel was wrong and confusing.
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
DeSnousa
May 16, 08:23 PM
nice! did you get your passkey?
Sure did, all 5 of my rigs have a passkey now.
Sure did, all 5 of my rigs have a passkey now.
fivepoint
May 4, 05:55 PM
Dude, you're clueless.
I have a severe congenital hearing loss and it's really amazing how parents don't really understand the long term consequences of poor hearing protection.
Just as in almost all other health matters, the more exposure to loud noises when young, the more likely a child is to end up with a hearing loss as he ages. Some parents do insist on hearing protection when using firearms, but I'm sure there are a lot that don't. Shooting guns without hearing protection is like taking a five year old to a Nascar race. Very, very irresponsible simply based on the noise level.
I'm sure Dr Choi was speaking of the danger of firearms being discharged by and around children with a lack of supervision, but your tunnel vision when it comes to the health and safety of children is appalling.
I think it's you who's clueless. You make it seem as if it's the role of government and physicians to eliminate risk in our lives. What's more risky, taking your kid to a NASCAR event without hearing protection, or raising them in a large city with lots of traffic and crime? What's more risky, raising your kids in a home with un-locked guns, or raising them with an ultra-protective disregard for a child's need to learn life lessons and experience the value of trust/responsibility first hand?
My dad had a rifle hanging on a gun-rack above his computer in his office for my entire life. The ammunition was directly below the gun in a drawer as part of the gun-rack. I was raised to respect the weapon and to never touch it unless I was given permission. I earned my parents' trust, and learned responsibility as a consequence. Was that wrong of my parents? Absolutely not, but I guess I'm just 'clueless.'
Where do you live? Cedar Rapids, where the nearest next physician is five or ten minutes away, at most? What if you were in Guttenberg, where the next physician is half an hour or more? Open-ended liberty to refuse to provide treatment at a whim is just plain irresponsible.
An unpopular physician creates the market demand for an alternative. Supply, unencumbered by any sort of rationing by the gov't subsidized higher-education system, would produce the complimentary supply.
In any event, do you seriously contend that this is a situation solveable by by big intrusive government controlling physicians and eliminating their ability to render services as they see fit?
I have a severe congenital hearing loss and it's really amazing how parents don't really understand the long term consequences of poor hearing protection.
Just as in almost all other health matters, the more exposure to loud noises when young, the more likely a child is to end up with a hearing loss as he ages. Some parents do insist on hearing protection when using firearms, but I'm sure there are a lot that don't. Shooting guns without hearing protection is like taking a five year old to a Nascar race. Very, very irresponsible simply based on the noise level.
I'm sure Dr Choi was speaking of the danger of firearms being discharged by and around children with a lack of supervision, but your tunnel vision when it comes to the health and safety of children is appalling.
I think it's you who's clueless. You make it seem as if it's the role of government and physicians to eliminate risk in our lives. What's more risky, taking your kid to a NASCAR event without hearing protection, or raising them in a large city with lots of traffic and crime? What's more risky, raising your kids in a home with un-locked guns, or raising them with an ultra-protective disregard for a child's need to learn life lessons and experience the value of trust/responsibility first hand?
My dad had a rifle hanging on a gun-rack above his computer in his office for my entire life. The ammunition was directly below the gun in a drawer as part of the gun-rack. I was raised to respect the weapon and to never touch it unless I was given permission. I earned my parents' trust, and learned responsibility as a consequence. Was that wrong of my parents? Absolutely not, but I guess I'm just 'clueless.'
Where do you live? Cedar Rapids, where the nearest next physician is five or ten minutes away, at most? What if you were in Guttenberg, where the next physician is half an hour or more? Open-ended liberty to refuse to provide treatment at a whim is just plain irresponsible.
An unpopular physician creates the market demand for an alternative. Supply, unencumbered by any sort of rationing by the gov't subsidized higher-education system, would produce the complimentary supply.
In any event, do you seriously contend that this is a situation solveable by by big intrusive government controlling physicians and eliminating their ability to render services as they see fit?
elctropro
Jan 1, 01:26 AM
My understanding is that AT&T is pretty far along in its upgrade from HPSA (3G) network to HPSA+ (faster 3G). They're doing this to maximize their existing investment in their infrastructure, and they should be able to employ LTE a little faster than Verizon has been, since LTE is a more streamlined upgrade from HPSA+. They claim that this is best for customers long-term, because when LTE (4G) coverage gives out, users can fall back on widespread HPSA+ coverage with similar performance. Whereas with Verizon, when you move out of an area with 4G coverage, you notice a HUGE drop in speed going to their ancient EV-DO technology.
*LTD*
Apr 22, 10:01 PM
The fact that I can not opt out. That it tracking me no matter were I go and I do not get a choice in the matter.
So? How exactly will this affect you personally? Sounds like an imaginary demon. What exactly is your fear? Will some harm come to you?
On top of that the more services that do this the more likely that it will be stolen as it already been shown Apple way of doing it is craptature as it is not even encrypted compared to Googles which is.
Why does it need to be encrypted? For what purpose?
This makes it very easy to steal.
Ok. But for what purpose? To what end?
It more I want to know what info is collect and what is done with it and also the option to opt out.
What exactly do you think will be done with that information? Will you be tracked and abducted? What will be done with information that showed you were like 10km near your local Target outlet? Is this critical, private information about you?
I made this cupcake background
So? How exactly will this affect you personally? Sounds like an imaginary demon. What exactly is your fear? Will some harm come to you?
On top of that the more services that do this the more likely that it will be stolen as it already been shown Apple way of doing it is craptature as it is not even encrypted compared to Googles which is.
Why does it need to be encrypted? For what purpose?
This makes it very easy to steal.
Ok. But for what purpose? To what end?
It more I want to know what info is collect and what is done with it and also the option to opt out.
What exactly do you think will be done with that information? Will you be tracked and abducted? What will be done with information that showed you were like 10km near your local Target outlet? Is this critical, private information about you?
JRM PowerPod
Sep 12, 08:01 AM
i have two tutes tomorrow and lecture plus i have a 10hr shift, im going to sleep, wake me up when something happens 555-2121. Enjoy
I predict
Movie Store (US only)
New iPod (fullscreen)
New iPod nano
One more thing will be two more things
iPhone
iSharemoviestomyTV
I predict
Movie Store (US only)
New iPod (fullscreen)
New iPod nano
One more thing will be two more things
iPhone
iSharemoviestomyTV
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
CplBadboy
Jul 21, 05:10 PM
LOL! Yeah it might drop a few bars but it doesnt show no service like the iP4.
The iP4 drops calls and shows no service thats the issue not how many bars it drops.
makes me laugh that Apple are doing everything they can to divert everyones attention away from the REAL ISSUE - HARDWARE DESIGN FAILURE.
And Apple know that everyone will get bored posting soon on this issue and therefore it will really become an non issue.
Apple aint gonna do sht about this.
The iP4 drops calls and shows no service thats the issue not how many bars it drops.
makes me laugh that Apple are doing everything they can to divert everyones attention away from the REAL ISSUE - HARDWARE DESIGN FAILURE.
And Apple know that everyone will get bored posting soon on this issue and therefore it will really become an non issue.
Apple aint gonna do sht about this.
andiwm2003
Apr 25, 09:50 PM
if it looks like this, has 16GB, A5, 512MB Ram, a good 5MP camera, the same facetime camera as before I'll upgrade from my 3GS. This is likely to happen anyway. When will it be out? Any guesses in the absence of data?
Peel
Oct 2, 06:07 PM
You'd expect Jobs would have some sympathy for the guy, what with his phreaking days before Apple.
I had a roommate in college that had an actual Jobs/Wozniak-built blue box. It was about 10 years old at the time, but still worked fine.
I had a roommate in college that had an actual Jobs/Wozniak-built blue box. It was about 10 years old at the time, but still worked fine.
Amazing Iceman
May 4, 09:04 AM
Does anybody know what apps are featured in this commercial? I was able to identify a few of them, but not all, and are not yet listed in the AppStore.
No comments:
Post a Comment