abrooks
Nov 23, 05:44 PM
Think Secret (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0611blackfridaynote.shtml) appears to disagree, but I'm sure they just made it up :rolleyes:
mrsir2009
Mar 6, 11:51 AM
Interesting points here...
Apple also purposely leaves out things in their devices (iPad, iPhone) so that they can make tons of money off it, release a new device with all the features they left out and make a ton of money off that too...
Apple also purposely leaves out things in their devices (iPad, iPhone) so that they can make tons of money off it, release a new device with all the features they left out and make a ton of money off that too...
Hovey
Jul 21, 10:51 AM
Apple should spend the money spent on pointing fingers at others and no a bumper is not a fix. It only happens to 1% of the users? Greeeeat. That's 1% more than it should. So get to work and stop trying to look at others failures that are similar to yours.
What's apple trying to say? That they are failing At fixing something just better?
Nope, they're saying that nearly every phone has the same problem because nobody has been able to figure out a way around physics, so even though barely anybody is calling in to complain or return a phone we are going to give you something for free and other companies won't even though their manuals tell you the same thing we are telling you.
What's apple trying to say? That they are failing At fixing something just better?
Nope, they're saying that nearly every phone has the same problem because nobody has been able to figure out a way around physics, so even though barely anybody is calling in to complain or return a phone we are going to give you something for free and other companies won't even though their manuals tell you the same thing we are telling you.
kernkraft
Jul 30, 11:22 AM
I think the Volt is a success in terms of meeting its intended design parameters. However, I think the whole notion of the all-electric car and plug-in hybrids are flawed due to our current infrastructure.
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
more...
Mac_Freak
Sep 7, 09:31 PM
He is performance aside, that was not what would ever expect from Apple.
Kanye West's lyriks where anapropriate for the even. I am sure Steve or any one else in Apple has heard his liriks, just how did they allowed for that performace. The croud in that event didn't care for his performance and for sure wasn't in their taste, as I havn't see a jurnalists go "Yo, Yo, wut up dude?"
ahh what is going on at Apple now days?!
Kanye West's lyriks where anapropriate for the even. I am sure Steve or any one else in Apple has heard his liriks, just how did they allowed for that performace. The croud in that event didn't care for his performance and for sure wasn't in their taste, as I havn't see a jurnalists go "Yo, Yo, wut up dude?"
ahh what is going on at Apple now days?!
JAT
May 4, 10:54 PM
The iPad is soo ultimate in access, that you can't even access its file system...
...and the only professional work being done on iPads in meetings are trying to get to the last level in Angry Birds LOL
Aww, does the iPad scare you? See, bullies that take their **** out on others are just scared because someone is already doing it to them. It's sad, really. I pity bullies.
We should get some kittens for you.
...and the only professional work being done on iPads in meetings are trying to get to the last level in Angry Birds LOL
Aww, does the iPad scare you? See, bullies that take their **** out on others are just scared because someone is already doing it to them. It's sad, really. I pity bullies.
We should get some kittens for you.
more...
Night Spring
Apr 21, 01:05 PM
That isn't it, because I can change the scores up or down (by TWO points) at will.
Hmmm, well, when *I* do it, it goes up 2 but down 1!
Hmmm, well, when *I* do it, it goes up 2 but down 1!
wmmk
Aug 14, 11:44 AM
You're telling me they haven't recouped costs for designing the things yet? Or that we should always have to pay..
Of course they've recouped costs for designing products. My point is, if one product has superior design, there is high demand for it. Considering that the global economy is based on supply & demand, well designed products will always cost more than poorly designed products, unless the creator of the product with superior design chooses to discount their product to gain market share and popularity.
Of course they've recouped costs for designing products. My point is, if one product has superior design, there is high demand for it. Considering that the global economy is based on supply & demand, well designed products will always cost more than poorly designed products, unless the creator of the product with superior design chooses to discount their product to gain market share and popularity.
more...
mdntcallr
Aug 7, 03:05 PM
Sounds like a good idea. Clear out inventory. make some sales. As LCD prices come down, so should apple's list price.
But I am not into these models, I want a HDTV compliant model with speakers.
so i can watch HDTV via HDMI, ie plug in a blu-ray movie or watch HD directv.
give us HDMI with 1080P ability Apple.
with nice speakers, so we can have all in one!!
basically i want a tv/monitor
But I am not into these models, I want a HDTV compliant model with speakers.
so i can watch HDTV via HDMI, ie plug in a blu-ray movie or watch HD directv.
give us HDMI with 1080P ability Apple.
with nice speakers, so we can have all in one!!
basically i want a tv/monitor
IJ Reilly
Oct 23, 10:27 AM
I would love for apple to use 10 billion to innovate fantastically, enter new markets, go green, and more. I don't think it's going to happen- the purpose of 10 billion in the bank for apple is having 10 billion in the bank. Apple's expertise is in taking big risks (at least large for a compnay of their size), a good number of which pay off very, very well. But people- investors, CEOs, are risk adverse, and a huge pile of cash to operate on, so big they can operate and continue to invest in risky and exciting products, mitigates their risks. For apple, a pile of money might actually be worth more than investing that money at a high rate of return.
Huge cash hordes are only good for three things, in order of desirability: reinvesting in future growth (which is why it's called capitalism); returning to the stockholders in the form of dividends; or holding for a rainy day. The last reason, which you seem to think is the best one, should be seen by investors as a signal that the company lacks confidence in the future.
Actually, there's a fourth use of excess cash: a stock buy-back. Apple isn't doing this with the money currently, either.
I agree, the huge stockpile of cash is an issue. That's money that should be working for Apple, and IMHO that should be in the form of purchasing other companies that will strengthen Apple in key areas, like music distribution and/or audio/video/graphics production.
And I also agree with you on the dividend issue. A small investment of that money into dividends may have the exact effect as you describe. On the other hand, putting that money into new products/enhancing existing products, may do more for Apple's long-term health vs. providing a dividend to improve the 'optics' of the company in shareholders' eyes.
New investments in technologies and products would be by far the best use of the money. With Apple's cash, they could set up a research arm similar to Xerox PARC or the old Bell Labs and place themselves in the forefront of new technology for a long time. Instead, they seem to be notably stingy with their R&D dollars. Purchasing technologies by buying out smaller companies could also be advantageous, and Apple does do some of this, but not much -- not enough to make even a dent in their cash hoard.
Huge cash hordes are only good for three things, in order of desirability: reinvesting in future growth (which is why it's called capitalism); returning to the stockholders in the form of dividends; or holding for a rainy day. The last reason, which you seem to think is the best one, should be seen by investors as a signal that the company lacks confidence in the future.
Actually, there's a fourth use of excess cash: a stock buy-back. Apple isn't doing this with the money currently, either.
I agree, the huge stockpile of cash is an issue. That's money that should be working for Apple, and IMHO that should be in the form of purchasing other companies that will strengthen Apple in key areas, like music distribution and/or audio/video/graphics production.
And I also agree with you on the dividend issue. A small investment of that money into dividends may have the exact effect as you describe. On the other hand, putting that money into new products/enhancing existing products, may do more for Apple's long-term health vs. providing a dividend to improve the 'optics' of the company in shareholders' eyes.
New investments in technologies and products would be by far the best use of the money. With Apple's cash, they could set up a research arm similar to Xerox PARC or the old Bell Labs and place themselves in the forefront of new technology for a long time. Instead, they seem to be notably stingy with their R&D dollars. Purchasing technologies by buying out smaller companies could also be advantageous, and Apple does do some of this, but not much -- not enough to make even a dent in their cash hoard.
more...
roadbloc
Apr 22, 06:07 PM
Here's the reality of this non-issue...
You'd be up in arms if Google were doing it. Or anyone else to that matter.
I like how you have, yet again, managed to turn a non-Apple related discussion, to a discussion about Apple. Grats.
You'd be up in arms if Google were doing it. Or anyone else to that matter.
I like how you have, yet again, managed to turn a non-Apple related discussion, to a discussion about Apple. Grats.
BWhaler
Apr 12, 11:56 AM
Some people will never understand the power of Apple and the fundamental insight that makes Apple's products so powerful.
It's not a feature list. It's not a slick vaneer.
It's a deep understanding of design. How to make a product work naturally that empowers us to achieve what we want with the tool.
It's rarely more. It's rarely new pretty pictures.
Great art is knowing when to stop.
It's not a feature list. It's not a slick vaneer.
It's a deep understanding of design. How to make a product work naturally that empowers us to achieve what we want with the tool.
It's rarely more. It's rarely new pretty pictures.
Great art is knowing when to stop.
more...
KnightWRX
Mar 13, 12:45 PM
They also helped create an entire new software development industry
Which software development industry would this be ? Embedded systems ? Mobile devices ?
Nope, nothing new there. They expanded maybe, but they did not create.
I'm not talking about the lower levels of computing. I'm talking about the parts of computing that End Users, who will never see an IDE in their entire lives. This is where computing is being redefined. They're shifting the way people use the "input. Process. Output.Store".
Again for the people wanting very much to redefine computing, "shifting the way people use" is not redefining computing. At least qualify it properly as a shift in usability, not in computing. You are talking about the lower levels when you use the word computing.
Why are some of you uninitiated insisting on using "computing" and claiming it is redefined ? Is it because a shift in usability doesn't sound as great accomplishment and you want to make what Apple did much bigger than it really is ? Stay objective please, don't involve emotions you have for a corporation in this discussion.
Which software development industry would this be ? Embedded systems ? Mobile devices ?
Nope, nothing new there. They expanded maybe, but they did not create.
I'm not talking about the lower levels of computing. I'm talking about the parts of computing that End Users, who will never see an IDE in their entire lives. This is where computing is being redefined. They're shifting the way people use the "input. Process. Output.Store".
Again for the people wanting very much to redefine computing, "shifting the way people use" is not redefining computing. At least qualify it properly as a shift in usability, not in computing. You are talking about the lower levels when you use the word computing.
Why are some of you uninitiated insisting on using "computing" and claiming it is redefined ? Is it because a shift in usability doesn't sound as great accomplishment and you want to make what Apple did much bigger than it really is ? Stay objective please, don't involve emotions you have for a corporation in this discussion.
oldMac
Aug 10, 08:35 AM
And that's what's so sinister about the electrics. Because it is hard to track just how efficient (or inefficient) the electricity from the grid is... people tend to ignore that whole side of the equation. But it is just as important.
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.
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).
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.
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.
so the efficiency of the power coming off the grid becomes the primary concern. And figuring that out is much harder than looking at mpg numbers.
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.
How many pounds of coal/gallons of oil are burned at the power plant to get your Volt a mile down the road (I assume it works out to be fairly efficent, but I don't know any numbers)?
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.
More importantly, would a proliferation in plug-ins result in regular rolling blackouts because power plants can't keep up with rising demand?
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.
The biggest thing Americans have trouble with is adjusting to smaller cars. The cars we drive are, on average, unneccesarily big - and anyone who says otherwise is thought to be a Communist.
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. :)
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.)
Lifestyle changes (buying a smaller car, driving less) are the only way to really reduce fuel consumption on a national or global scale in the near to medium future. We can't wait for technology alone to pick up the slack.
And 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
so the efficiency of the power coming off the grid becomes the primary concern. And figuring that out is much harder than looking at mpg numbers.
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.
How many pounds of coal/gallons of oil are burned at the power plant to get your Volt a mile down the road (I assume it works out to be fairly efficent, but I don't know any numbers)?
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.
More importantly, would a proliferation in plug-ins result in regular rolling blackouts because power plants can't keep up with rising demand?
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.
The biggest thing Americans have trouble with is adjusting to smaller cars. The cars we drive are, on average, unneccesarily big - and anyone who says otherwise is thought to be a Communist.
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. :)
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.)
Lifestyle changes (buying a smaller car, driving less) are the only way to really reduce fuel consumption on a national or global scale in the near to medium future. We can't wait for technology alone to pick up the slack.
And 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.
more...
macman2790
Oct 3, 01:18 PM
If it takes that long before C2D finds its way into the MBP, I think Apple will be laughed at by a lot of the other manufacturers who have already announced models due before the holiday season.
They might get laughed at but apple will be the ones laughing when their the first to debut santa rosa with 800mhz fsb and nand flash. Hopefully this is whats going to happen
They might get laughed at but apple will be the ones laughing when their the first to debut santa rosa with 800mhz fsb and nand flash. Hopefully this is whats going to happen
iGary
Sep 26, 04:56 PM
After all of the comments about how great Aperture ran, and considering how crappy it was running on mine, I decided to take into the Apple Store.
The video card is defective and they are replacing it. No wonder my experience with the program stunk.
:)
The video card is defective and they are replacing it. No wonder my experience with the program stunk.
:)
more...
Zwhaler
Jan 12, 12:36 AM
Look, I feel as if with all the rumors that were flying around about the iPhone, WE pressured him to release the iPhone by Macworld. He did what we wanted. But it was such a large project that he had to forgo releasing other products that we wanted as well. We expected too much of him, and for you to act like that he is an a-hole for releasing something as revolutionary as the iPhone is just plain indecent. </$0.02>
flopticalcube
Nov 24, 05:58 PM
Apple.ca store now very slow...
firestarter
Apr 26, 11:21 AM
Like this: 283005
*LTD*
Apr 23, 07:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
RP:
All you have shown is a deep-seated fear of advertising. And it's been stated that Apple doesn't actually collect this data, so it isn't even being used for iAds.
How exactly, specifically, will this cell phone tower tracking info compromise your personal safety? What exactly is there to fear? There must be something more than targeted advertising, which is at best an annoyance you have to live with anyway.
RP:
All you have shown is a deep-seated fear of advertising. And it's been stated that Apple doesn't actually collect this data, so it isn't even being used for iAds.
How exactly, specifically, will this cell phone tower tracking info compromise your personal safety? What exactly is there to fear? There must be something more than targeted advertising, which is at best an annoyance you have to live with anyway.
apachie2k
Sep 12, 07:21 AM
Will we be able to watch this event live? How will coverage (if there will be any) be brought to us?
through mac rumors of course...
through mac rumors of course...
dmelgar
Jul 21, 10:52 AM
Really classy apple. Try to cover up your mistake by confusing users and trying to insult competitors you didn't think you even had to worry about.
Apple continues to disappoint in surprising ways. What happened to the focus on building great products?
Apple continues to disappoint in surprising ways. What happened to the focus on building great products?
steadysignal
Apr 10, 06:59 PM
I refuse to buy anything from Best Buy because of their ethics and practices.
+1. been done with best buy for a long time. the markup on hdmi cables alone is enough to make me want to throw up in my mouth.
rats.
+1. been done with best buy for a long time. the markup on hdmi cables alone is enough to make me want to throw up in my mouth.
rats.
jclardy
May 3, 09:30 PM
just getting started...iPad 3!
Or you know, the more obvious conclusion - iOS 5.
Or you know, the more obvious conclusion - iOS 5.
0 comments:
Post a Comment