Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 10:08 PM
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone," is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone," is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
GGJstudios
May 2, 01:00 PM
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:27 PM
nixd2001:
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
samcraig
Mar 18, 10:09 AM
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
The incorrect assumption would be that ATT could never or can't or however you want to phrase it determine if you are using date via tether or not.
And there are always ways. As someone who works for a major IT firm - there are always ways.
Just because ATT didn't act on it before doesn't mean they couldn't tell. And just because they didn't act on it before - doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do it now. It's at their discretion as to pursue or not pursue breaches in the agreement.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
The incorrect assumption would be that ATT could never or can't or however you want to phrase it determine if you are using date via tether or not.
And there are always ways. As someone who works for a major IT firm - there are always ways.
Just because ATT didn't act on it before doesn't mean they couldn't tell. And just because they didn't act on it before - doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do it now. It's at their discretion as to pursue or not pursue breaches in the agreement.
SolarJ
Apr 6, 02:21 PM
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
Try Divvy. Its awesome
Try Divvy. Its awesome
lazyrighteye
Oct 7, 12:21 PM
The SDK is limited only to the Apple OS, granted, it relies on hooks, however, you are alienating a hell of a lot of people from developing on the platform.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
balamw
Apr 10, 03:15 PM
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
pkson
Apr 21, 08:41 PM
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
After reading through the whole thread, I really liked this post.
It's funny how the phrase "It just works" can be used in both ways.
The best part is that it comes from an un-disputable IT person. Thanks for putting in the weight. :)
Working smoothly is probably one of the biggest reasons the iPhone could gain so much ground.
So hats off to you sir.
PS. I love TI. My dad used to use an old TI scientific calculator in the 80s, and I still have a soft spot for TI. (Used to live in TX as well! haha)
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
After reading through the whole thread, I really liked this post.
It's funny how the phrase "It just works" can be used in both ways.
The best part is that it comes from an un-disputable IT person. Thanks for putting in the weight. :)
Working smoothly is probably one of the biggest reasons the iPhone could gain so much ground.
So hats off to you sir.
PS. I love TI. My dad used to use an old TI scientific calculator in the 80s, and I still have a soft spot for TI. (Used to live in TX as well! haha)
iBug2
Apr 20, 07:50 PM
People should drop the Ferrari analogy, because it's totally off the mark. Ferrari is better than pretty much anything else, on almost every aspect you can think of, except size.
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:12 AM
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 09:04 AM
I'm joking about Afghanistan. It's supposed to be an Isreal joke, but obviously you didn't get it. And I think it's funny! ;)
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
monster620ie
Apr 13, 05:48 AM
I am upgrading from fcs3 to this.
cmaier
Apr 21, 04:58 PM
"Blame the user." It's the Microsoft way.
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
Silentwave
Jul 13, 08:35 AM
and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
iliketyla
Apr 21, 07:15 PM
Unfortunately we have a whole heap of 'computer experts' on this forum who attach 'virus' onto anything they want whilst ignoring there is a huge difference between a malware and a virus.
I know I'm going to get flamed, but in the 7 or 8 years before I was bought a Macintosh computer, I never once encountered a virus while using Windows machines. Malware, yes. But ever since I gained even the most basic knowledge of how to use a computer competently, I have zero problems anymore.
I can seamlessly go from Windows to Macintosh with no problems.
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
I know I'm going to get flamed, but in the 7 or 8 years before I was bought a Macintosh computer, I never once encountered a virus while using Windows machines. Malware, yes. But ever since I gained even the most basic knowledge of how to use a computer competently, I have zero problems anymore.
I can seamlessly go from Windows to Macintosh with no problems.
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
Elfear
Nov 1, 03:24 PM
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Groovey
Aug 30, 11:32 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Demoman
Jul 13, 12:59 AM
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
aswitcher
Jul 12, 07:10 AM
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
And if they back it up fully with software features in Leopard and iLife07, Macs should leap ahead as multimedia machines...dedicated processor for video to avoid any missed frames recordings or playing.
And if they back it up fully with software features in Leopard and iLife07, Macs should leap ahead as multimedia machines...dedicated processor for video to avoid any missed frames recordings or playing.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 05:11 PM
i can't find a good source for timed updates.
all things seem to go together and i can't really tell what's new and what's not.
one thing seemingly emerging as really problematic is the spent fuel pools.
I can't understand how it is possible that the design puts it in the worst possible place (in terms of management during a crisis) and without ANY containment protection.
it's crazy.
puma, could you explain the rationale?
all things seem to go together and i can't really tell what's new and what's not.
one thing seemingly emerging as really problematic is the spent fuel pools.
I can't understand how it is possible that the design puts it in the worst possible place (in terms of management during a crisis) and without ANY containment protection.
it's crazy.
puma, could you explain the rationale?
No comments:
Post a Comment