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.
MagnusVonMagnum
May 1, 10:55 AM
The fact that you say they have "zero to do with anything I said" shows just how little you understand. You really think that locking down an OS has nothing to do with software or computer engineering? I can't even begin to come up with a response, as your level of shared knowledge is just too low.
Dude, honestly, WTF are you going on about? You throw abstract generic words around like "software and computer engineering" that encompass literally the ENTIRE computer market and then tell people they don't know WTF they're talking about. Sorry, but I have to laugh. You demonstrate no knowledge about the subject and your reponses are pretty much, "I won't even bother to argue because you're a 5-year old". ROTFLMAO. Nothing says "clueless" to me quite like throwing insults and giving no valid arguments what-so-ever on a given topic. I've got two degrees in electronic engineering so you calling me a 5-year old is so utterly absurd, it's a joke.
What Apple does with iOS and OSX uses engineering, but there is no technology 'god' up there demanding that Apple head in the direction of closed systems, non-professional features, etc. There is no template that forces Apple to go in a given direction. More advanced engineering doesn't mean more closed. Learn the difference for goodness sake!
Apple is making these decisions based on business decisions with some 'control' factors thrown-in based on their CEO's personality. Engineering simply accommodates/implements the business decisions taken. It is not responsible for those decisions in any way. They could accommodate improvements with or without open/closed. Yes, it has 'something' to do with it, but it's completely irrelevant to the conversation here because implementing or creating a vision technologically is still not a business decision whether to do something or not (in this case whether to pursue real technological improvements to OSX or spend their time dumbing down the interface and/or making it more like the iPad/iPhone. Those are 'lateral' steps at best, not engineering breakthroughs.
Dude, honestly, WTF are you going on about? You throw abstract generic words around like "software and computer engineering" that encompass literally the ENTIRE computer market and then tell people they don't know WTF they're talking about. Sorry, but I have to laugh. You demonstrate no knowledge about the subject and your reponses are pretty much, "I won't even bother to argue because you're a 5-year old". ROTFLMAO. Nothing says "clueless" to me quite like throwing insults and giving no valid arguments what-so-ever on a given topic. I've got two degrees in electronic engineering so you calling me a 5-year old is so utterly absurd, it's a joke.
What Apple does with iOS and OSX uses engineering, but there is no technology 'god' up there demanding that Apple head in the direction of closed systems, non-professional features, etc. There is no template that forces Apple to go in a given direction. More advanced engineering doesn't mean more closed. Learn the difference for goodness sake!
Apple is making these decisions based on business decisions with some 'control' factors thrown-in based on their CEO's personality. Engineering simply accommodates/implements the business decisions taken. It is not responsible for those decisions in any way. They could accommodate improvements with or without open/closed. Yes, it has 'something' to do with it, but it's completely irrelevant to the conversation here because implementing or creating a vision technologically is still not a business decision whether to do something or not (in this case whether to pursue real technological improvements to OSX or spend their time dumbing down the interface and/or making it more like the iPad/iPhone. Those are 'lateral' steps at best, not engineering breakthroughs.
scottsjack
Mar 28, 06:38 PM
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. In its totality, installing an app is more like:
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Oh my gosh, the terrible amount of work you have to go through just to buy and install an application. Put convenience as your first priority and Steve will make many things "easier" for you. . .
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Oh my gosh, the terrible amount of work you have to go through just to buy and install an application. Put convenience as your first priority and Steve will make many things "easier" for you. . .
Hastings101
May 3, 10:31 PM
I want that voice-over guy to read me bedtime stories.
I think most people would agree with that statement
I think most people would agree with that statement
ktappe
May 3, 04:56 PM
why do they care for how you use it?Because you then sign a contract that says how you agree to use it. This is outside of that agreement. If you want to sign an agreement to use the data in a different way, I'm sure the carrier will accommodate you.
That's not why.
But get your wallet open.
THAT is why.
That's not why.
But get your wallet open.
THAT is why.
rowlands
Oct 24, 11:17 PM
If I recall correctly they did formally apologize. I do genuinely like the guys at Gizmodo and I enjoying their blog, its a personal thing. Some of friends can't stand it and prefer Engadget.
I personally hope that they're given a chance to prove that they can make tech journalism fun without going over the top. If they blow it this time, I fully support punishment.
I personally hope that they're given a chance to prove that they can make tech journalism fun without going over the top. If they blow it this time, I fully support punishment.
sunfast
Sep 12, 07:37 AM
Does this mean we won't be seeing iTunes 7.0? I mean if they were releasing a new iTunes wouldn't they make the changes on the new release?
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 09:24 PM
Update **
It now works !! that logic will help me a lot with future projects.
thanks wlh99 and to everyone who contribute.
It now works !! that logic will help me a lot with future projects.
thanks wlh99 and to everyone who contribute.
Dagless
Mar 6, 11:43 AM
LOL - you make it sound like everyone else just copies Apple: Other companies are inventive, for example, the company behind Kinetic, or Nintendo ( first 3d game system not requiring glasses ), or Amazon for making the first popular ebook reader device, or sony
Apple are highly visible and of course, they do make innovative products but I wouldn't go as far to say "the only company".
Exactly. Apple are just highly visible. Looking around my studio now and scanning through the tools I use at work I see lots of advanced tech that Apple doesn't use;
Microsoft Kinect, Playstation Move, Bluray, 3D display, Wacom, decent headphones, HD video camera, DSLR.
Then there's Haptic/tactile feedback for touchscreens and OLED that they could be taking advantage of...
Apple are highly visible and of course, they do make innovative products but I wouldn't go as far to say "the only company".
Exactly. Apple are just highly visible. Looking around my studio now and scanning through the tools I use at work I see lots of advanced tech that Apple doesn't use;
Microsoft Kinect, Playstation Move, Bluray, 3D display, Wacom, decent headphones, HD video camera, DSLR.
Then there's Haptic/tactile feedback for touchscreens and OLED that they could be taking advantage of...
cmaier
Apr 5, 04:28 PM
I'm going to start a TV channel that only shows commercials.
thisisahughes
Mar 29, 01:03 AM
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
agreed. I sometimes wish there were more apps. in the Mac App Store. I think it's great and would love to use it more.
agreed. I sometimes wish there were more apps. in the Mac App Store. I think it's great and would love to use it more.
coder12
May 4, 06:53 AM
:.) It's so beautiful, like a double raaaaiinnboow!!
puckhead193
Jan 6, 09:13 PM
do you think apple is doing this because apple will release a limited edition product like only 200 of something
benjayman2
Apr 6, 06:48 PM
2 tickets to see Source Code, brilliant.
I found the orginal, "Groundhog Day" with the talented Bill Murray much more captivating. Although I did like two things.
1) Russel Peters
2) Took place near the stop I use to pick up my GF from.
I found the orginal, "Groundhog Day" with the talented Bill Murray much more captivating. Although I did like two things.
1) Russel Peters
2) Took place near the stop I use to pick up my GF from.
Patrick J
Apr 29, 03:09 PM
283485
Finally! No more confusing depressed-buttons-aren't-selected. With every build Apple seem to be pulling Lion's iPad look back to OSX look.
Finally! No more confusing depressed-buttons-aren't-selected. With every build Apple seem to be pulling Lion's iPad look back to OSX look.
TheWheelMan
Mar 17, 12:53 PM
Really VictoriaStudent, lol I agree with BForstal on what people would do in the same situation 100 percent, and I'm not trying to brag about anything, and I cant even believe this thread has reached 3 pages. Sec I have no reason to troll!!! I have been a member of this forum since and even though I have never really posted anything I have found wealth of knowledge over the years from people in these forums. Wow and you cannot judge a person's character by a mistake a cashier made in a store!!! Like I said everybody is entitled to there own opinion, If you were to make note of the mistake to the store if it happened to you and it makes you feel so highly above any one else, more power to you. As far as I'm concerned this is one time I actually got a break on a apple product.
You're probably right, but the difference is that most would either have enough of a guilty conscience, or at least enough fear of getting busted, to NOT go telling it in a public forum and then copping some sort of superior attitude over it when criticized about it.
By knowingly taking it you did in fact break the law, and now you've publicly incriminated yourself to boot. Your morality is unfair to question given how the majority of people may have done the same thing (Meaning, "Who are we to judge?"). Your stupidity, however, is quite evident, and those are the ones who usually end up paying for their crimes one way or another. Karma is, in fact, a b@tch. Especially when you paint a bullseye on your @ss and dare it to strike you down.
You're probably right, but the difference is that most would either have enough of a guilty conscience, or at least enough fear of getting busted, to NOT go telling it in a public forum and then copping some sort of superior attitude over it when criticized about it.
By knowingly taking it you did in fact break the law, and now you've publicly incriminated yourself to boot. Your morality is unfair to question given how the majority of people may have done the same thing (Meaning, "Who are we to judge?"). Your stupidity, however, is quite evident, and those are the ones who usually end up paying for their crimes one way or another. Karma is, in fact, a b@tch. Especially when you paint a bullseye on your @ss and dare it to strike you down.
eggstone
Nov 24, 09:29 AM
In store you should be able to get both discounts.
I am looking forward to hear the follow up on this story. I really doubted you can get both EDU and Thanksgiving discount together, even in store.
Maybe one can just ask the question to a on-line apple-store-chat staff?
I am looking forward to hear the follow up on this story. I really doubted you can get both EDU and Thanksgiving discount together, even in store.
Maybe one can just ask the question to a on-line apple-store-chat staff?
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 5, 08:46 PM
Thanks Dejo...
I may download this app as I've still not encountered an iAd, and it's on the bucket list. ;)
I can assure you all I'm not an idiot or moron.
:p
MOR- oh nevermind. :p actually I downloaded it long ago! haha. Just for kicks. It's pretty well made. And I remember when iAds first came out I was actually wanting something like this because I actually did want to see all the different ones. They are moderately entertaining and if the product interests you it can be informative.
That being said I'll probably delete it like tomorrow...
I may download this app as I've still not encountered an iAd, and it's on the bucket list. ;)
I can assure you all I'm not an idiot or moron.
:p
MOR- oh nevermind. :p actually I downloaded it long ago! haha. Just for kicks. It's pretty well made. And I remember when iAds first came out I was actually wanting something like this because I actually did want to see all the different ones. They are moderately entertaining and if the product interests you it can be informative.
That being said I'll probably delete it like tomorrow...
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 02:42 AM
+1
I've been telling this to people for awhile now...if Microsoft *truly* wants a killer OS, then they're gonna have to do what Apple did a decade ago -
Leave the cruft, even if it breaks stuff for awhile, get RID of the registry (this was a good idea...coming from DOS, and being used in Windows 95), use a Linux or UNIX kernel as the base OS, and make applications self-contained, like Apple's are.
It may be copying, but they've copied everything ELSE, why not copy something that *might* have a shot at making the apps easier to install, and viruses harder to get in?
Besides, the apps were *almost* self-contained back in Windows 3.1 - anyone remember .ini files? If MS had let people keep those, there never would've been much use for a registry to begin with.
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
I've been telling this to people for awhile now...if Microsoft *truly* wants a killer OS, then they're gonna have to do what Apple did a decade ago -
Leave the cruft, even if it breaks stuff for awhile, get RID of the registry (this was a good idea...coming from DOS, and being used in Windows 95), use a Linux or UNIX kernel as the base OS, and make applications self-contained, like Apple's are.
It may be copying, but they've copied everything ELSE, why not copy something that *might* have a shot at making the apps easier to install, and viruses harder to get in?
Besides, the apps were *almost* self-contained back in Windows 3.1 - anyone remember .ini files? If MS had let people keep those, there never would've been much use for a registry to begin with.
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
swarmster
Jan 9, 05:33 PM
Everyone please be careful opening Quicktime (to do an "open url..." as MacRumors recommends)! If you have it set to load the 'content guide' on startup, there's a spoiler image waiting for you.
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
xPismo
Oct 28, 05:16 PM
The whole OSx86 project is a warez project hiding behind OSS. It just re-enforces the negative OSS image.
edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it?
Ack. Thats pretty damming text.
edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it?
Ack. Thats pretty damming text.
lordonuthin
May 16, 02:04 PM
Thought I would post here instead of starting a new thread. How do I get bonus points, all I am reading is -advmethods and setting up a passkey. Would it be worth it on a i7 720qm at 1.66ghz? Would it complete a wu in 4 days?
This passkey sounds like a big deal should I be using it on all me machines?
With the console client for windows, is there a way I can close the window with out it stopping folding, kind of pointless having the window constantly open. Surely it can fold in the background?
Thanks guys :)
On an i7 720 you won't get bigadv units done in time to get bonus points also I have an i7 980x that hasn't gotten any bigadv units even though I have it set up to get them. I suspect some recent changes on the server end are allowing only certain cpu's to get bigadv units and i7's probably aren't getting them. as far as the passkey I'm not sure it makes any difference for someone like you, I don't think there are any other wu's that get a bonus...
You can minimize the window and it will keep folding...
This passkey sounds like a big deal should I be using it on all me machines?
With the console client for windows, is there a way I can close the window with out it stopping folding, kind of pointless having the window constantly open. Surely it can fold in the background?
Thanks guys :)
On an i7 720 you won't get bigadv units done in time to get bonus points also I have an i7 980x that hasn't gotten any bigadv units even though I have it set up to get them. I suspect some recent changes on the server end are allowing only certain cpu's to get bigadv units and i7's probably aren't getting them. as far as the passkey I'm not sure it makes any difference for someone like you, I don't think there are any other wu's that get a bonus...
You can minimize the window and it will keep folding...
MagicBoy
Mar 25, 06:10 PM
Did I miss something? I was talking about Eidorian. And I don't care if he's secretly Steve Jobs. A troll is a troll.
Yeah, I thought the same. Was trying to work out how Schmye made such a mad link!
He probably OD'd on Mountain Dew ;)
Yeah, I thought the same. Was trying to work out how Schmye made such a mad link!
He probably OD'd on Mountain Dew ;)
fun173
May 3, 01:51 PM
This sucks. I don't want to have to pay Verizon an extra $20 a month on top of an already expensive phone bill to do this crap. Will this affect using PDAnet on a jail broken iPhone?
No comments:
Post a Comment