stukick
Apr 8, 05:42 PM
Best Buy still sucks.
superfula
Apr 29, 05:09 PM
You're mixing up your kernels. NT 4.0 doesn't share a kernel with 95/98, NT 3.51 doesn't share a kernel with Windows 3.x...
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
No, smitty was correct. MS uses version numbers that identify it's code. It's how software devs can write code that decides whether the app should be allowed to install.
In a command prompt, use winver. Note the version listed
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x. 2000 and XP are both 5.x, Vista and Windows 7 are 6.x. So it's clear 7 is nothing more than marketing.
From the horses mouth: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
No, smitty was correct. MS uses version numbers that identify it's code. It's how software devs can write code that decides whether the app should be allowed to install.
In a command prompt, use winver. Note the version listed
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x. 2000 and XP are both 5.x, Vista and Windows 7 are 6.x. So it's clear 7 is nothing more than marketing.
From the horses mouth: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
jamesi
Nov 20, 02:15 AM
Here we go folks.
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
ditto, why would apple switch to another chip when they are with the most reliable and solid choice at the moment
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
ditto, why would apple switch to another chip when they are with the most reliable and solid choice at the moment
twoodcc
Apr 29, 08:52 PM
I should have a new system (i7 980x) tomorrow, I will get it set up with Ubuntu to do bigadv units.
you're really getting one?! if so, you'll have to start a new thread about it, and give up updates!
you're really getting one?! if so, you'll have to start a new thread about it, and give up updates!
more...
robbieduncan
Apr 26, 10:53 AM
Y
P.S. The box surrounding the up/down buttons is baboon-ass ugly.
What box? Not seeing one here (Firefox 4 on Windows Vista at work)
P.S. The box surrounding the up/down buttons is baboon-ass ugly.
What box? Not seeing one here (Firefox 4 on Windows Vista at work)
Stella
Mar 28, 06:09 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.
Hyperbole.. dear lord - over exaggeration.
* use your favourite mac listing website of your choice - you only need to find a few, and they don't take long to find. Only need to do this once.
* Pretty much all companies allow you to re-download, so no need to worry there.
* a lot of software listing sites allow reviews, for example, mac update, versiontracker
* most software companies use reputable payment processors, larger companies often use their own - and can be trusted.
* UNLIKE, the mac appstore, you can very often download TRIAL versions so you can TRY BEFORE you BUY!
Sure, the mac app store is convenient, but shouldn't be relied upon as the only source of software due to its limitations and limited software listings.
If someone never ventures out side the appstore then they'll miss out on gems such as 1Password, Launchbar, bettertouchtool... and many others.
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.
Hyperbole.. dear lord - over exaggeration.
* use your favourite mac listing website of your choice - you only need to find a few, and they don't take long to find. Only need to do this once.
* Pretty much all companies allow you to re-download, so no need to worry there.
* a lot of software listing sites allow reviews, for example, mac update, versiontracker
* most software companies use reputable payment processors, larger companies often use their own - and can be trusted.
* UNLIKE, the mac appstore, you can very often download TRIAL versions so you can TRY BEFORE you BUY!
Sure, the mac app store is convenient, but shouldn't be relied upon as the only source of software due to its limitations and limited software listings.
If someone never ventures out side the appstore then they'll miss out on gems such as 1Password, Launchbar, bettertouchtool... and many others.
more...
JKK photography
Apr 12, 06:48 AM
That's not entirely true. When you buy a new mac you get iLife, with a new PC, you get office, windows live suite (ilife competitor), other apps including anti-virus. So you can't say that "ou can't do absolutely anything with Windows out of the box without downloading extra software."
You get the same or similar level of functionality when buying a new computer. Apple gives you iLife, PCs you get office, and other stuff.
You get trials. Not actual copies, unless you pay for the license.
There is a big difference there.
You get the same or similar level of functionality when buying a new computer. Apple gives you iLife, PCs you get office, and other stuff.
You get trials. Not actual copies, unless you pay for the license.
There is a big difference there.
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.
more...
8CoreWhore
May 2, 02:19 PM
is there any way we can view our own tracked info. it would be cool to see where i have been.
There are GPS apps that allow you to leave "breadcrumbs"... a trail of your travels with data like avg speed, distance, etc.
There are GPS apps that allow you to leave "breadcrumbs"... a trail of your travels with data like avg speed, distance, etc.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 8, 04:24 PM
Roasted.
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
Apple Sheep Rule!
That's sarcasm in case you don't get it.
I imagine your declaration that there are "apple sheep" and that you are not one of them makes you feel very good about yourself. A respectability self injection! LMAO
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
Apple Sheep Rule!
That's sarcasm in case you don't get it.
I imagine your declaration that there are "apple sheep" and that you are not one of them makes you feel very good about yourself. A respectability self injection! LMAO
more...
Russell L
Sep 27, 02:22 AM
For those of you running Aperture on a Mac Pro, did you notice the new RAM requirement on http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/? It says "2GB of RAM required for Mac Pro." I've been running Aperture just fine on my new Mac Pro with the standard 1GB of RAM. Like many new Mac Pro owners, I've been holding off on upgrading the RAM until it gets a little cheaper. The 1.5 update installer better not refuse to install on my Mac because of insufficient RAM; I'll be pretty upset if it does. :(
Russell
Russell
Dagless
Nov 16, 12:43 PM
Why would they go with AMD when there is the Core2Duo? AMD needs something big to compete. AMD? I can't see it.
more...
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:29 AM
Is this new?
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
Simple answer: No.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
Simple answer: No.
ritmomundo
Mar 18, 05:56 PM
I'm not saying that all other smart phones owners are jealous of my iPhone, I think we can all agree thats nonsense.
From your original post --> "It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
From your original post --> "It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
more...
pkson
May 3, 09:39 PM
Nice ad!
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:41 PM
Any one that proposes using diesel or gas because of the impact it "might" have on our national grid (which by the way depends on where you live, i.e. Nuclear power plants for California, renewable hydro-electric for Las Vegas, etc...) pales in comparison to incidents like... oh say... the GULF OIL SPILL!!! What did that cost so far? Tens of billions. Not to mention the amount of lives it has ruined! Wonder how many electric cars could have been made and powered over the course of a year on that bill?
I only propose using diesel or gasoline engine until they can be replaced or heavily augmented - and more particularly, I was advocating more efficent diesel cars because the fact is we are stuck with internal combustion cars for the near/medium-term. Some people seem eager to ignore the internal combustion engine entirely and jump straight to electrics, when in the meantime we could be drastically reducing fuel consumption. In reality we need to do both.
There is nothing renewable about Las Vegas, lol. ;)
Internal combustion engines should have died off over 50 years ago.
What would power container ships then? Or military vehicles used in the field? Or generators used in remote locations or as backups for hospitals? No, I think internal combustion engines will be with us forever, because they are very useful in many areas.
I only propose using diesel or gasoline engine until they can be replaced or heavily augmented - and more particularly, I was advocating more efficent diesel cars because the fact is we are stuck with internal combustion cars for the near/medium-term. Some people seem eager to ignore the internal combustion engine entirely and jump straight to electrics, when in the meantime we could be drastically reducing fuel consumption. In reality we need to do both.
There is nothing renewable about Las Vegas, lol. ;)
Internal combustion engines should have died off over 50 years ago.
What would power container ships then? Or military vehicles used in the field? Or generators used in remote locations or as backups for hospitals? No, I think internal combustion engines will be with us forever, because they are very useful in many areas.
more...
robshort
Jan 15, 04:44 PM
Still. No. Flash. On. My. Iphone.
W. T. F??!
W. T. F??!
Synthion
Mar 7, 05:38 AM
Apple isn't the origin of all their ideas, some, but not all. Look at it this way.
BATMAN AND JOKER Themed ART
SevenInchScrew
Mar 11, 04:43 PM
Transition.
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple.
I thought they "redefined" computing? How can it be definite if it is still in a "transition" phase?
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple.
I thought they "redefined" computing? How can it be definite if it is still in a "transition" phase?
p0intblank
Jan 5, 04:20 PM
I did this for WWDC and enjoyed it more than reading the updates. I'll be doing it again for Macworld. It's just so much more exciting. :D
pivo6
Apr 22, 10:35 AM
All seems rather silly to me.
Over the years, there must have been 85 threads on some type of reputation/like/thanks system and it's always been shot down (thankfully). What changed?
I realize that this is just a test run of this "feature", but I too wonder what has changed in order to come up with a reputation system.
Over the years, there must have been 85 threads on some type of reputation/like/thanks system and it's always been shot down (thankfully). What changed?
I realize that this is just a test run of this "feature", but I too wonder what has changed in order to come up with a reputation system.
Zadillo
Oct 10, 09:19 PM
While I don't know about Engadget's "reliable" Apple sources, their reliable Microsoft sources gave em everything about the Zune, even a PICTURE.
So don't dismiss this, it's Page 1 worthy, but it's also not more than 50% likely, as it would be if this was AppleInsider we were talking about.
Well, the difference there is that Microsoft used Engadget and others as part of their marketing campaign - "leaking" product information and photos to them to try and drum up interest. They did the same thing before with their "leaks" of Origami to try and build up hype. Of course, Zune seems to have gained more traction than UMPC (perhaps because the Zune is basically using a model that has been proven successful by the iPod).
Apple on the other hand just doesn't seem to leak product information ahead of time any more, and they also don't seem to need to do that kind of thing to generate hype and excitement for their products.
-Zadillo
So don't dismiss this, it's Page 1 worthy, but it's also not more than 50% likely, as it would be if this was AppleInsider we were talking about.
Well, the difference there is that Microsoft used Engadget and others as part of their marketing campaign - "leaking" product information and photos to them to try and drum up interest. They did the same thing before with their "leaks" of Origami to try and build up hype. Of course, Zune seems to have gained more traction than UMPC (perhaps because the Zune is basically using a model that has been proven successful by the iPod).
Apple on the other hand just doesn't seem to leak product information ahead of time any more, and they also don't seem to need to do that kind of thing to generate hype and excitement for their products.
-Zadillo
SteveKnobs
Apr 21, 01:21 PM
I like this feature, however I definitely think there needs to be a counter for both positive and negative votes. If the counter says "0" we have no idea how many votes that post recieved as there could be an equal number of +/- votes- which wouldn't tell us much of anything, would it?
Edit: Or am I not understanding how the counters work?
Edit: Or am I not understanding how the counters work?
SockRolid
Apr 16, 05:28 AM
wow the iOS/Apple closed ecosystem must really be the WORSE THANG EVAR if google is trying to trying to do it.
Dumpster fires are open. Weedpatches are open. Cesspools are open.
Pick one and jump in.
Dumpster fires are open. Weedpatches are open. Cesspools are open.
Pick one and jump in.
No comments:
Post a Comment