3N16MA
Apr 25, 12:38 PM
Never knew these guys ran a blog. The makers of the now famous Steve Jobs figure and the iHub 2.
aricher
Oct 3, 12:20 PM
Just 97 days to go. :)
rdowns
Apr 21, 11:38 AM
How do I +2 Waloshin's posts?
geiger167
Sep 12, 06:43 AM
the distribution rights are totally different for movies.
when a tv show comes out in the us the uk channels buy the rights from the us companies and this often means we don't get the shows in the UK for ages. and they don't come to ITunes in uk as it would be for apple to negotiate this with the uk tv company like channel 4.
some films are released internationally at the same time and so are the DVDs thus there is no reason why these films can't be released on an ITMS in the US, UK and wherever else the DVD would be released worldwide on the same date.
my cousin's an itunes lawyer working nr regents street store in london so she was explaining about tv shows to me....i'll try find out about the probs with movies if indeed the ITMS is released today and not in the UK.
sound reasonable?
Yes understand what you are saying but movie distrubution outside USA is only likely to make the situation worse than the current TV show problems. For example a film distrubuted in America will very likely be distrubuted outside by a different Studio, making any foreign rights to show the movie even more complex. Also dvds generally are released much earlier in US than in europe so a movie available in US say tomorrow on a hypothecical US itunes may not be available to release for download for months on a EURO itunes even if there are no problems with the already mentions foreign distrubution rights. The only reason I complain about this situation is I am perfectly free to import region 1 dvds into the UK to watch for my own personal use (which I have done for many years) so why cant I download a movie or show from Itunes, what exactly is the difference using this example ? Also annoying is that in the UK 10 meg internet lines are now very common (and likely to increase in speed in the next 12 months) so the structure is there already for a download service to succeed (also in most EURO contires like Sweden who have led the way with internet connection speeds for years)
I'm still like a crack whore waiting for a fix anticipating the news though lol
when a tv show comes out in the us the uk channels buy the rights from the us companies and this often means we don't get the shows in the UK for ages. and they don't come to ITunes in uk as it would be for apple to negotiate this with the uk tv company like channel 4.
some films are released internationally at the same time and so are the DVDs thus there is no reason why these films can't be released on an ITMS in the US, UK and wherever else the DVD would be released worldwide on the same date.
my cousin's an itunes lawyer working nr regents street store in london so she was explaining about tv shows to me....i'll try find out about the probs with movies if indeed the ITMS is released today and not in the UK.
sound reasonable?
Yes understand what you are saying but movie distrubution outside USA is only likely to make the situation worse than the current TV show problems. For example a film distrubuted in America will very likely be distrubuted outside by a different Studio, making any foreign rights to show the movie even more complex. Also dvds generally are released much earlier in US than in europe so a movie available in US say tomorrow on a hypothecical US itunes may not be available to release for download for months on a EURO itunes even if there are no problems with the already mentions foreign distrubution rights. The only reason I complain about this situation is I am perfectly free to import region 1 dvds into the UK to watch for my own personal use (which I have done for many years) so why cant I download a movie or show from Itunes, what exactly is the difference using this example ? Also annoying is that in the UK 10 meg internet lines are now very common (and likely to increase in speed in the next 12 months) so the structure is there already for a download service to succeed (also in most EURO contires like Sweden who have led the way with internet connection speeds for years)
I'm still like a crack whore waiting for a fix anticipating the news though lol
AndroidfoLife
Apr 15, 09:35 PM
They were "called" smart phones. But the iphone defined the direction the iphones of the future would take.
iPhone did nothing new. It just took some popular features and combined them. It was more of a game changer due to it being made by apple.
iPhone did nothing new. It just took some popular features and combined them. It was more of a game changer due to it being made by apple.
belkjab
Feb 8, 03:20 PM
The article at the following URL explains "in great detail" how the Dell & Apple Flat Panels differ:
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400
Apple seals the panel and associated electronics inside of a case thus protecting these delicate components from dust. Unfortunately, the Dell Flat panel has vents on the top, back of the case which expose these components to dust. I would expect Apple's display to out last that sold by Dell.
Who said anything about Dell claiming greater contrast. Which of my post said that Dell claimed greater contrast ratio and brightness?. I would never make that claim (The dell website claims that the Dell 24 inch is 700:1 contrast, same as the Apple panels, which just got that upgrade while the Dell panels where that for a while). As to brightness, Dell 24 inch is 400 cd/m2 while the apple 23 inch is also 400 cd/m2. I'm neither a Dell fanboy nor an apple fanboy (as i so fondly point out time after time, i have a apple power G5 mac with a 20 inch Dell monitor). I would never make claims such as Dell monitor is better than Apple monitor unless I knew that to be true.. I pointed out that they used the same panels. Yes, the size may be different but they come off the same manufacturing line. To see Dell specs, here is the link for the 24 inch http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-0863
They are the same panels except notice Dell has more features which puzzles me greatly. Apple wants to charge a premium for their monitor and that is fine with me but come on!!!.. have more features than the other guy please!!!.. you know how annonying it is for a Dell fanboy to come up to you and say.. hey, our monitor is the same but mine is better and cheaper (better in terms of more features, not brightness or contrast). If you think features don't matter, you are living in la la land. I like the fact that i can hook up more things to my Dell monitor than i could have with an apple monitor. If the apple monitor was more versatile and offered more features, i'd consider paying the premium but i am not gonna get an overpriced apple monitor cause stevie says so.. I don't see him offering me rides on his boat.. why the hell should i get trapped in his reality distortion field?. Give me something better and i will gladly hand over my money to Stevie so he can get a bigger boat (and without any complaints).
As to my first glorius revelation, you must be a newbie. you should search for my name in other apple forums. I don't suffer fools gladly (or people who reply to a post too quickly). When i post, i do not expect an instantaneous response. It's ok to google the information before you respond. I can wait!!. If you don't know or understand, say so but do not try to make a point about something you don't know about. You replied to one of my post about how wrong I was that dell and apple were using the same panel and now you claim you don't know about the lcd production process?.. and you complain about me being mean?.. you leave yourself open to such an attack when you start making statements you have no idea are true or not.
Google is a great resource.. I don't know everything either (i wish i did but unfortunately, time is finite and my brain only has so much capacity).. but I always research stuff on google before posting. It helps (also helps to view the company you are bashing website to see their monitor specs before posting).
BTW, since the apple 30 inch is definetly a better value than Dell 30 inch (although i am sure Michael will not take that lying down.. watch for dell to suddenly drop prices on their monitors) i am soliciting funds to my "get a apple 30 inch monitor" foundation. I get the feeling i will not be seeing your dollar. Oh well. Maybe I haven't antagonized everyone in all the forums and i can get some donations to my wonderful foundation (whoose sole purpose is to get me a 30 inch apple monitor).
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400
Apple seals the panel and associated electronics inside of a case thus protecting these delicate components from dust. Unfortunately, the Dell Flat panel has vents on the top, back of the case which expose these components to dust. I would expect Apple's display to out last that sold by Dell.
Who said anything about Dell claiming greater contrast. Which of my post said that Dell claimed greater contrast ratio and brightness?. I would never make that claim (The dell website claims that the Dell 24 inch is 700:1 contrast, same as the Apple panels, which just got that upgrade while the Dell panels where that for a while). As to brightness, Dell 24 inch is 400 cd/m2 while the apple 23 inch is also 400 cd/m2. I'm neither a Dell fanboy nor an apple fanboy (as i so fondly point out time after time, i have a apple power G5 mac with a 20 inch Dell monitor). I would never make claims such as Dell monitor is better than Apple monitor unless I knew that to be true.. I pointed out that they used the same panels. Yes, the size may be different but they come off the same manufacturing line. To see Dell specs, here is the link for the 24 inch http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-0863
They are the same panels except notice Dell has more features which puzzles me greatly. Apple wants to charge a premium for their monitor and that is fine with me but come on!!!.. have more features than the other guy please!!!.. you know how annonying it is for a Dell fanboy to come up to you and say.. hey, our monitor is the same but mine is better and cheaper (better in terms of more features, not brightness or contrast). If you think features don't matter, you are living in la la land. I like the fact that i can hook up more things to my Dell monitor than i could have with an apple monitor. If the apple monitor was more versatile and offered more features, i'd consider paying the premium but i am not gonna get an overpriced apple monitor cause stevie says so.. I don't see him offering me rides on his boat.. why the hell should i get trapped in his reality distortion field?. Give me something better and i will gladly hand over my money to Stevie so he can get a bigger boat (and without any complaints).
As to my first glorius revelation, you must be a newbie. you should search for my name in other apple forums. I don't suffer fools gladly (or people who reply to a post too quickly). When i post, i do not expect an instantaneous response. It's ok to google the information before you respond. I can wait!!. If you don't know or understand, say so but do not try to make a point about something you don't know about. You replied to one of my post about how wrong I was that dell and apple were using the same panel and now you claim you don't know about the lcd production process?.. and you complain about me being mean?.. you leave yourself open to such an attack when you start making statements you have no idea are true or not.
Google is a great resource.. I don't know everything either (i wish i did but unfortunately, time is finite and my brain only has so much capacity).. but I always research stuff on google before posting. It helps (also helps to view the company you are bashing website to see their monitor specs before posting).
BTW, since the apple 30 inch is definetly a better value than Dell 30 inch (although i am sure Michael will not take that lying down.. watch for dell to suddenly drop prices on their monitors) i am soliciting funds to my "get a apple 30 inch monitor" foundation. I get the feeling i will not be seeing your dollar. Oh well. Maybe I haven't antagonized everyone in all the forums and i can get some donations to my wonderful foundation (whoose sole purpose is to get me a 30 inch apple monitor).
Gasu E.
Oct 25, 03:34 PM
Who are you to judge how I'd raise my kids? I earned my money, and I'll spend it however I damn well please.
Someone who thinks there is more than a little projection of moral superiority in this comment about someone's choice in bathroom/bedroom ratio. If that's how you choose to raise your kids, fine; but the moralizing is nonsense.
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Someone who thinks there is more than a little projection of moral superiority in this comment about someone's choice in bathroom/bedroom ratio. If that's how you choose to raise your kids, fine; but the moralizing is nonsense.
wordoflife
Mar 17, 05:54 PM
It's probably the lines fed to them by retail employees at point of purchase. This is actually cheaper yet better than the iPhone because *insert random pro here*
It has a kickstand lol
It has a kickstand lol
snberk103
Apr 15, 02:38 PM
...
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
...
My only claim is that something the TSA is doing is working to help prevent hijackings. This was in response to some arguments that nothing airport security was doing was in fact useful. If you go back, you will see I quoted both TSA and European stats, not just TSA. And that while there may have been no passenger hijackings in the 90s in the USA, there were a couple in Europe, and one in Japan. And then nothing in Europe and Japan or the USA since 9/11. Which I believe is due to increased airport security, similar to what the TSA does.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
...
My only claim is that something the TSA is doing is working to help prevent hijackings. This was in response to some arguments that nothing airport security was doing was in fact useful. If you go back, you will see I quoted both TSA and European stats, not just TSA. And that while there may have been no passenger hijackings in the 90s in the USA, there were a couple in Europe, and one in Japan. And then nothing in Europe and Japan or the USA since 9/11. Which I believe is due to increased airport security, similar to what the TSA does.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
fxtech
Mar 28, 03:15 PM
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
That and someone who doesn't live on Kool Aid.
That and someone who doesn't live on Kool Aid.
ZLurker
Sep 12, 07:29 AM
I'm in Washington D.C. (8:24am EST) and just tried going into iTMS and there's a black page, with white text, announcing "It's Showtime. The iTunes Store is being updated." Here come the movies!
hmmmm,
i just tried the same with the swedish store, and its down :)
maby this will be a world event afterall!!
hmmmm,
i just tried the same with the swedish store, and its down :)
maby this will be a world event afterall!!
noripwr
Apr 15, 07:04 PM
I love Apple but these are bad news.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
I dislike it when people keep saying that line over and over. Does competition really make products better? Where's the truth in that? If it's truly the case, why do we still see half-baked consumer products for the end user?
If anything, I feel that there seldom really is a better product for us because of competition. A competing product with better specs does not necessarily result in a better product. And frankly, judging by the gadget industry, Apple's been releasing consumer-satisfied products left and right despite better (in specs) products being released by their competitors.
Okay. So did competition [from other manufacturers] make Apple release a better product? No. Because from how the Internet reacts, every other manufacturer outspecs Apple and Apple "overcharges for something you can get with much more for much less"
But Apple does release products to get with the times, however, I feel that Apple products don't need high-end specs to provide consumer satisfaction.
Besides, the iOS today looks the same as the iOS from the iPhone 1 but with upgrades. Did competition spur Apple into doing the upgrades? I doubt it. They seem to have their own idea of where to direct their OS. Honeycomb on the other hand looks and functions very differently from Froyo. That [design decision] instead seems to be driven by competition.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
I dislike it when people keep saying that line over and over. Does competition really make products better? Where's the truth in that? If it's truly the case, why do we still see half-baked consumer products for the end user?
If anything, I feel that there seldom really is a better product for us because of competition. A competing product with better specs does not necessarily result in a better product. And frankly, judging by the gadget industry, Apple's been releasing consumer-satisfied products left and right despite better (in specs) products being released by their competitors.
Okay. So did competition [from other manufacturers] make Apple release a better product? No. Because from how the Internet reacts, every other manufacturer outspecs Apple and Apple "overcharges for something you can get with much more for much less"
But Apple does release products to get with the times, however, I feel that Apple products don't need high-end specs to provide consumer satisfaction.
Besides, the iOS today looks the same as the iOS from the iPhone 1 but with upgrades. Did competition spur Apple into doing the upgrades? I doubt it. They seem to have their own idea of where to direct their OS. Honeycomb on the other hand looks and functions very differently from Froyo. That [design decision] instead seems to be driven by competition.
wtmcgee
Oct 20, 12:00 PM
when CS3 ships, watch the marketshare explode.
donlphi
Oct 4, 01:18 PM
I heard this is all a rumor!!!
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Coming as little surprise to veteran Apple watchers, IDG World Expo announced on Tuesday that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would deliver the opening keynote address (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/03/jobs/index.php) at Macworld Expo San Francisco. The expo will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Convention Center from January 8-12, with the keynote on Tuesday January 9th at 9 am Pacific at Moscone West.
Last year's keynote brought software updates including iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110141828.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142618.shtml) 06 and Mac OS X 10.4.4 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110180240.shtml). Also, the first Intel Macs were announced 6 months early in the form of the iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142730.shtml) and MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142811.shtml).
While still early, this year's expectations have already begun to gain steam, with obvious expectations of iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802125923.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060717122553.shtml) updates as well as the formal launch of the "iTV". Also possible is Apple's long-awaited phone and similarly long-awaited "true" video iPod, although both products have seen several setbacks. Lastly, with OS 10.5 Leopard's release around the corner, Jobs will undoubtedly take the opportunity to highlight some already announced (and perhaps some remaining "top-secret") features of the new operating system.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_To_Keynote_Macworld_San_Francisco_2007)
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Coming as little surprise to veteran Apple watchers, IDG World Expo announced on Tuesday that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would deliver the opening keynote address (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/03/jobs/index.php) at Macworld Expo San Francisco. The expo will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Convention Center from January 8-12, with the keynote on Tuesday January 9th at 9 am Pacific at Moscone West.
Last year's keynote brought software updates including iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110141828.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142618.shtml) 06 and Mac OS X 10.4.4 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110180240.shtml). Also, the first Intel Macs were announced 6 months early in the form of the iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142730.shtml) and MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142811.shtml).
While still early, this year's expectations have already begun to gain steam, with obvious expectations of iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802125923.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060717122553.shtml) updates as well as the formal launch of the "iTV". Also possible is Apple's long-awaited phone and similarly long-awaited "true" video iPod, although both products have seen several setbacks. Lastly, with OS 10.5 Leopard's release around the corner, Jobs will undoubtedly take the opportunity to highlight some already announced (and perhaps some remaining "top-secret") features of the new operating system.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_To_Keynote_Macworld_San_Francisco_2007)
leroypants
Apr 8, 03:53 PM
It's still pretty ******.
If I walk into a Best Buy and to buy a product that's for sale, knowing full well they have it in stock but they just want to "hold it" for something, I'd be pissed.
How pissed do you think people would be when they get the Sunday ad and see a guaranteed minimum of 20 ipads, travel to the store only to find out they only have 3 instock because they sold 17 on Saturday? They hold a certain amount because the Sunday ads say they have a minimum in stock.
If I walk into a Best Buy and to buy a product that's for sale, knowing full well they have it in stock but they just want to "hold it" for something, I'd be pissed.
How pissed do you think people would be when they get the Sunday ad and see a guaranteed minimum of 20 ipads, travel to the store only to find out they only have 3 instock because they sold 17 on Saturday? They hold a certain amount because the Sunday ads say they have a minimum in stock.
rtdgoldfish
Mar 26, 05:29 PM
Your thinking too much about the worst side of things. Aren't you grateful they didnt steal umm... $10000?
Well, they did steal over $1000 worth of stuff. Thats a big deal in my book when I only make $10,000 a year and that I'm in college. I know what you are saying but its still crappy for someone to even steal $100 worth of stuff from you.
Well, they did steal over $1000 worth of stuff. Thats a big deal in my book when I only make $10,000 a year and that I'm in college. I know what you are saying but its still crappy for someone to even steal $100 worth of stuff from you.
tlux
Jan 12, 09:55 PM
i dont think he was arrogant. I think he was genuinely excited about this product, not because it earns the company (and ultimately himself) money, but because it is such a big leap in technology.
And at the start of the keynote, he did say that Mac hardware and software will be announced in a couple of weeks time. Just wait a little while, and i'm sure you'll hear people complaining that the new C2Q MPs dont have their name engraved on the side of the machines:p
I agree I don't think he was arrogant. But at the begining of the keynote he said Mac hardware and software would be announced in a couple of "months" not weeks.
And at the start of the keynote, he did say that Mac hardware and software will be announced in a couple of weeks time. Just wait a little while, and i'm sure you'll hear people complaining that the new C2Q MPs dont have their name engraved on the side of the machines:p
I agree I don't think he was arrogant. But at the begining of the keynote he said Mac hardware and software would be announced in a couple of "months" not weeks.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
pudrums
Apr 11, 05:20 PM
21 Gramm
http://www.cineasten.de/bilder/filme/21-gramm/l.jpg
http://www.cineasten.de/bilder/filme/21-gramm/l.jpg
leekohler
Apr 18, 12:38 PM
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
It's already been explained to you that left-handedness is mentioned in history classes. Why do you have a problem with gay people being discussed? WHY?
Answer the question, although I think I already know your answer.
It's already been explained to you that left-handedness is mentioned in history classes. Why do you have a problem with gay people being discussed? WHY?
Answer the question, although I think I already know your answer.
lordonuthin
Apr 29, 12:26 AM
I keep on hearing these sick setups, I need photos now ;) Show me your f@h setup please :)
Not much to look at but here is most of what I have. the left pic is: 3 AMD athlon x2 4400+ machines and 1 Phenom x4 9600. looks kinda scary huh! all running various versions of Ubuntu
The right pic is an amd PhenomII x4 965 black with 3 gpu's running win7 (top box) and the lower one is an i7 920 with 3 gpu's running win7, again not much to look at but not quite so scary. only things missing are another x2 4400+ and my 09 Mac Pro octo core 2.66
Not much to look at but here is most of what I have. the left pic is: 3 AMD athlon x2 4400+ machines and 1 Phenom x4 9600. looks kinda scary huh! all running various versions of Ubuntu
The right pic is an amd PhenomII x4 965 black with 3 gpu's running win7 (top box) and the lower one is an i7 920 with 3 gpu's running win7, again not much to look at but not quite so scary. only things missing are another x2 4400+ and my 09 Mac Pro octo core 2.66
quentoncassidy
Dec 10, 07:02 PM
As mentioned, the spawning is terrible. IMO worse than in MW2 (which seemed hard to believe at first)
They shouldn't spawn anywhere near me. I hate spawning near the enemies too and die within 5 seconds of spawning. Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 seconds for a spawning point to open up instead of dying right away.
They shouldn't spawn anywhere near me. I hate spawning near the enemies too and die within 5 seconds of spawning. Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 seconds for a spawning point to open up instead of dying right away.
CHAOS STEP
Apr 7, 04:06 PM
Another 'proper' video game.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/CHAOS_STEP/RBSa.jpg
Full of 2D goodness.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/CHAOS_STEP/RBSa.jpg
Full of 2D goodness.
yg17
Apr 13, 12:19 PM
Let me give you a REAL scenario. I used to use my laptop backpack to carry my lunch to work and I was at the airport heading out of town. What I didn't know is that one of my butter knives had slid down under the lining of the backpack. Of course I went in security and was pulled to the side where I was professionally patted down. They then pulled me off to the side to further inspect the bag. I told them the story and they allowed me to slip it in an envelope to mail it home.
1. It worked as they did catch a potential weapon.
2. They were profesional about it the entire time (Boston TSA).
3. If you cooperate with them it is generally no big deal.
People that are making this difficult simply like to complain for the sake of complaining. Take the bus....
4. The most rational response would be to realize that a butter knife cannot harm anyone and allow you to carry it on the plane.
1. It worked as they did catch a potential weapon.
2. They were profesional about it the entire time (Boston TSA).
3. If you cooperate with them it is generally no big deal.
People that are making this difficult simply like to complain for the sake of complaining. Take the bus....
4. The most rational response would be to realize that a butter knife cannot harm anyone and allow you to carry it on the plane.
