CIA
Apr 13, 01:12 AM
Currently I work as a producer for the NBA. If the face recognition works, that could be huge for what I do. We have to go through months and months of games pulling highlights of individual players. Currently we edit using Final Cut Pro systems. If the new system can accurately analyze faces and allow me to do a search for certain players, well, that would be friggin' awesome. I hope it works.
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
ddtlm
Oct 13, 06:30 PM
javajedi:
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
TennisandMusic
May 2, 11:43 AM
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
.PNG "selena gomez who says music")
Nicksd84
Apr 21, 12:44 AM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
To an extent. Apple's breakthrough with the iPhone just can't be beat. The market was established and it sucked. They just blew everyone out and now the parallels are there with MS to Apple, but Apple has a much larger say. Meaning, android is similar to MS with windows, but they don't have the established dominance. I see it now at my current job, we're still using Windows XP... and they just can't change.
However, they are trying the iPad because they know the results and they know Apple's end game isn't stick an iPad everywhere, but make a damn good product. Most businesses have been burned with using one vendor and then getting stuck and long term screwed, but I think there is a trust with Apple. We will see if Apple can maintain high quality and innovation with larger demands.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
Didn't you just dismiss your own point? Android can be on an "infinite" number of devices, iOS is locked into 4. Also what's an iTV? Yes I am being a fan boy to an extent, but if you're going to argue make it substantive.
Why would making the hardware skew the number for the operating system?
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
To an extent. Apple's breakthrough with the iPhone just can't be beat. The market was established and it sucked. They just blew everyone out and now the parallels are there with MS to Apple, but Apple has a much larger say. Meaning, android is similar to MS with windows, but they don't have the established dominance. I see it now at my current job, we're still using Windows XP... and they just can't change.
However, they are trying the iPad because they know the results and they know Apple's end game isn't stick an iPad everywhere, but make a damn good product. Most businesses have been burned with using one vendor and then getting stuck and long term screwed, but I think there is a trust with Apple. We will see if Apple can maintain high quality and innovation with larger demands.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
Didn't you just dismiss your own point? Android can be on an "infinite" number of devices, iOS is locked into 4. Also what's an iTV? Yes I am being a fan boy to an extent, but if you're going to argue make it substantive.
Why would making the hardware skew the number for the operating system?
%25252BMade%25252Bby%25252BZach.jpg "selena gomez who says cover")
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
And I can't think of a better way to get a whole bunch of children raped by 'chaste' Catholic priests.
And I can't think of a better way to get a whole bunch of children raped by 'chaste' Catholic priests.
Quobobo
Mar 18, 07:40 PM
Now why do fag hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
Uragon
Apr 21, 02:30 AM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
starflyer
Apr 15, 11:01 AM
Ehh...I agree with you that bullying period, causes alot of pain. The only difference is, you can do situps to "fit in"...these kids are who they are. Kinda Apples and Oranges
What about the ugly kids?
What about the ugly kids?
electroshock
Oct 8, 07:04 AM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
Hopefully, after the Olympics. ;)
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
Hopefully, after the Olympics. ;)
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:38 PM
Wow, a TON OF YOU totally miss the iTV purpose, to stream content FROM YOUR MAC! That's why no tuner, no storage, no anything!! Does Airport Express have storage, an antenna, etc?!? NO!!!
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
Exactly. Bingo. You've got the vision.
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
Exactly. Bingo. You've got the vision.
.jpg "selena gomez who says cover")
Photics
Apr 9, 11:09 AM
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
Do you think the market can sustain four gaming companies?
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple? What if Google gets into the mix too? (They fumbled with Google TV, but it could be adapted and done properly.)
I think Nintendo represents the "Casual" side of gaming, both with the DS line and the Wii. Nintendo dominated portables for many years. Since the launch of the original Gameboy, no one could really challenge Nintendo's dominance.
But now, there are two new ways to enjoy portable gaming... Android and iOS.
Just as Radio is still around after Television, it's possible that Nintendo can survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, will Nintendo be the dominate player? In what scenario do they stay #1? If iOS is real competition in portable gaming (DS line) and in home gaming (Wii) is threatened by Apple TV / iPad, I think that looks like there are some real challenges ahead for Nintendo.
The 3DS is a surprise to me, as it's fairly expensive for a Nintendo portable. Why spend $250 on a 3DS when an iPod Touch starts at $229? Sure... it depends on your preferences, but the iPod Touch / iPhone is a successful alternative. This isn't the same battle the Gameboy faced against the Sega's Nomad / Game Gear, the Turbo Express Portable or Atari Lynx. In addition to hardware, the software can be cheaper on iOS / Android too.
Game ratings on iOS start at 4 and up.
Games for the 3DS start at 7 and up. It's harder to market a product when there are warnings about vision.
Viewing of 3D images by children 6 and under may cause vision damage.
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/3ds/en_na/health_safety.jsp
What happens this Christmas if Apple decides to launch an Apple TV that plays games... for $99? In these tough economic times, I think that's a serious threat to Nintendo.
So, Nintendo's portable line is under attack... both from Sony/Android and now Apple. Nintendo's console market is also under attack, as the Wii appears to be losing steam. If Apple enters the market with a $100 system, that's serious competition.
Here's a story... I was asked to make a recommendation for a gift. This was a nice gift, something around $250. At first I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. I thought it would be a cool gift because it was new. Yet, there was a regional lockout issue and I'm not sure it's something that's really good for a kid. At least with an iPod Touch, there's more to do with it than just games. Sure... the Nintendo 3DS does more than just games, but I think that the iPod Touch is a much better overall device... FaceTime, web browsing, iOS development, books, utilities, entertainment. It says, "Hey, I want you to have fun... but I also want you to learn something and be productive."
I recommended the iPod Touch. But surprisingly, this was not the gift that was purchased. Instead, an Android tablet was purchased as the gift. Heh... Android... that would not have been my choice.
Yet, that's the changing market. With iOS and Android, there's a lot more competition in portable devices... and I think that will eventually spill into the livingroom with game consoles. It's new technology that threatens Nintendo.
I think the strength of Nintendo is their software line... Mario, Zelda and popular games like that. If Nintendo struggles with hardware, they could eventually become software exclusive. That doomsday scenario has been uttered for many years � as Sony's entry into the market caused a lot of trouble for Nintendo. The company managed to turn things around with the DS and the Wii. Can Nintendo do it again when Apple is offering cheaper hardware, cheaper software?
One could argue about iOS games being mostly casual... and that the lack of a controller causes problems... but Apple can fix that problem if they so choose. With Game Center, and news like the one that started this thread, it shows that Apple is getting serious about gaming.
That's obviously big trouble for Nintendo.
Do you think the market can sustain four gaming companies?
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple? What if Google gets into the mix too? (They fumbled with Google TV, but it could be adapted and done properly.)
I think Nintendo represents the "Casual" side of gaming, both with the DS line and the Wii. Nintendo dominated portables for many years. Since the launch of the original Gameboy, no one could really challenge Nintendo's dominance.
But now, there are two new ways to enjoy portable gaming... Android and iOS.
Just as Radio is still around after Television, it's possible that Nintendo can survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, will Nintendo be the dominate player? In what scenario do they stay #1? If iOS is real competition in portable gaming (DS line) and in home gaming (Wii) is threatened by Apple TV / iPad, I think that looks like there are some real challenges ahead for Nintendo.
The 3DS is a surprise to me, as it's fairly expensive for a Nintendo portable. Why spend $250 on a 3DS when an iPod Touch starts at $229? Sure... it depends on your preferences, but the iPod Touch / iPhone is a successful alternative. This isn't the same battle the Gameboy faced against the Sega's Nomad / Game Gear, the Turbo Express Portable or Atari Lynx. In addition to hardware, the software can be cheaper on iOS / Android too.
Game ratings on iOS start at 4 and up.
Games for the 3DS start at 7 and up. It's harder to market a product when there are warnings about vision.
Viewing of 3D images by children 6 and under may cause vision damage.
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/3ds/en_na/health_safety.jsp
What happens this Christmas if Apple decides to launch an Apple TV that plays games... for $99? In these tough economic times, I think that's a serious threat to Nintendo.
So, Nintendo's portable line is under attack... both from Sony/Android and now Apple. Nintendo's console market is also under attack, as the Wii appears to be losing steam. If Apple enters the market with a $100 system, that's serious competition.
Here's a story... I was asked to make a recommendation for a gift. This was a nice gift, something around $250. At first I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. I thought it would be a cool gift because it was new. Yet, there was a regional lockout issue and I'm not sure it's something that's really good for a kid. At least with an iPod Touch, there's more to do with it than just games. Sure... the Nintendo 3DS does more than just games, but I think that the iPod Touch is a much better overall device... FaceTime, web browsing, iOS development, books, utilities, entertainment. It says, "Hey, I want you to have fun... but I also want you to learn something and be productive."
I recommended the iPod Touch. But surprisingly, this was not the gift that was purchased. Instead, an Android tablet was purchased as the gift. Heh... Android... that would not have been my choice.
Yet, that's the changing market. With iOS and Android, there's a lot more competition in portable devices... and I think that will eventually spill into the livingroom with game consoles. It's new technology that threatens Nintendo.
I think the strength of Nintendo is their software line... Mario, Zelda and popular games like that. If Nintendo struggles with hardware, they could eventually become software exclusive. That doomsday scenario has been uttered for many years � as Sony's entry into the market caused a lot of trouble for Nintendo. The company managed to turn things around with the DS and the Wii. Can Nintendo do it again when Apple is offering cheaper hardware, cheaper software?
One could argue about iOS games being mostly casual... and that the lack of a controller causes problems... but Apple can fix that problem if they so choose. With Game Center, and news like the one that started this thread, it shows that Apple is getting serious about gaming.
That's obviously big trouble for Nintendo.
jegbook
Apr 12, 03:47 PM
Or press print-screen. It puts the screen capture on the clipboard instead of saving to the desktop, but just as easy. AFAIK there is no simple equiv. to cmd-shft-4. I usually open in Paint and crop.
If you can get your fingers to do the gymnastics, command-control-shift-3 (or 4) will put your screen shot (or partial screen shot) to the Clipboard instead of a file to allow for pasting where you want to.
Cheers.
If you can get your fingers to do the gymnastics, command-control-shift-3 (or 4) will put your screen shot (or partial screen shot) to the Clipboard instead of a file to allow for pasting where you want to.
Cheers.
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=AppliedVisual;2994702]
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).
I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).
I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 12:34 AM
Until they get the 45nm process up and going, I think this is going to be the top of the line. 4 cores topping out around the mid 2GHz range.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
Multimedia
Oct 27, 05:21 PM
ah i'm so glad i check this website, sold my Quad G5 day before yesterday, and put in an order for a Mac Pro, that would have arrived Tuesday, fortunately (at least i hope it turns out that way) i saw this news last night, being unable to cancel online, i had to call and have just now cancelled the order. Don't know how to read into this, and i doubt customer services are in possession of such information but when the lady asked me why i was cancelling i mentioned hearing about new version coming out, it was news to her she thought i was making it up, so she put me on hold, and came back after a minute or two, i was worried she was coming back with news saying i couldn't cancel my order or something, but she had a different tone as if someone told her the news was true and she was happy to cancel.
But seriously i wish there was some more concrete news of the Octo core, i'm going to have to finish off a lot of work this weekend before i ship my G5 on Monday, as i'm going to be without a Mac for at least 2-3 weeks, and even if the new Revision comes out as planned lord knows what the waiting time will be, what if they have option of x1950 or something and we are looking at the delays like before?
Looks like i have an excuse to get one of those new fangled MB Pros. no Mac for a month, can not imagine it. :(I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
But seriously i wish there was some more concrete news of the Octo core, i'm going to have to finish off a lot of work this weekend before i ship my G5 on Monday, as i'm going to be without a Mac for at least 2-3 weeks, and even if the new Revision comes out as planned lord knows what the waiting time will be, what if they have option of x1950 or something and we are looking at the delays like before?
Looks like i have an excuse to get one of those new fangled MB Pros. no Mac for a month, can not imagine it. :(I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
blahblah100
Apr 28, 12:20 PM
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
beatle888
Mar 20, 08:24 PM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
eXan
Sep 26, 01:32 AM
Play WoW and CoD...... :confused:
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
nixd2001
Oct 12, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
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?
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 07:33 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
actually you are giving the finger to the rest of us... not AT&T... AT&T has a business model and just passes on additional costs to the consumer that actually pays for these things. so thanks.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
actually you are giving the finger to the rest of us... not AT&T... AT&T has a business model and just passes on additional costs to the consumer that actually pays for these things. so thanks.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:33 PM
You make an interesting point. My counter: Why are Apple not releasing the full list of regulated substances? Do they have something to hide?
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:29 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
macintel4me
Sep 20, 05:31 AM
I think the HD is using just for caching the streamed content. My prediction is that Apple will come out with a SAN with iTV/FrontRow streaming smarts in it. This way we don't have to run into our office to turn on our computer so we can watch TV in our living room.