w_parietti22
Oct 4, 07:32 PM
I might be going for my 16th Bday :D :D :D
AmbitiousLemon
Nov 16, 02:32 PM
They have more of the ability to develop the chips Apple needs at the quantity they need them...
This is a big point here. AMD has been struggling to keep up with demand for many months now. Apple has suffered in the past from vendors who couldn't deliver as promised. IMO the biggest advantage of the Intel shift was Intel's ability to meet Apple's demand.
This is a big point here. AMD has been struggling to keep up with demand for many months now. Apple has suffered in the past from vendors who couldn't deliver as promised. IMO the biggest advantage of the Intel shift was Intel's ability to meet Apple's demand.
Mord
Apr 28, 12:59 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Really? That doesn't matter? Well then why don't we have men compete in all the women's events at the Olympics? Oh wait, it does matter
I'm not defending the attackers. I think it was terrible. Horrifying video. It's hard to believe people are like this.
I do think this whole "biology doesn't matter, it's how you feel in your heart" nonsense is obviously nonsense.
He has every right to dress like a girl. I don't even mind if he uses a female bathoom. But those things don't make someone female. The characteristics that allow doctors to assign genders to new-borns do not change as people get older.
HAHAHA, funny, you happened to pick the *worst* possible example there, Transsexuals can and do compete in the Olympics, as long as they've been taking hormones that bring them to the typical range for their gender for a period of 2 years before competing. People do change gender physically.
I'm not going to bother to repeat myself with a detailed argument, feel free to read back through my discussion with MattSepeta.
Really? That doesn't matter? Well then why don't we have men compete in all the women's events at the Olympics? Oh wait, it does matter
I'm not defending the attackers. I think it was terrible. Horrifying video. It's hard to believe people are like this.
I do think this whole "biology doesn't matter, it's how you feel in your heart" nonsense is obviously nonsense.
He has every right to dress like a girl. I don't even mind if he uses a female bathoom. But those things don't make someone female. The characteristics that allow doctors to assign genders to new-borns do not change as people get older.
HAHAHA, funny, you happened to pick the *worst* possible example there, Transsexuals can and do compete in the Olympics, as long as they've been taking hormones that bring them to the typical range for their gender for a period of 2 years before competing. People do change gender physically.
I'm not going to bother to repeat myself with a detailed argument, feel free to read back through my discussion with MattSepeta.
dsnort
Aug 1, 11:29 AM
dsnort, meet OpenDocument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opendocument)... ;)
wallpaper tiger cub.
Cute Tiger Cubs Wallpapers.
tiger cub wallpapers
Amur Tiger Cub by *papatheo on
Snow Tiger Cubs Wallpaper.
Baby Tiger Cubs Wallpaper
Wallpaper tiger cub, tiger,
Cute white tiger cub Vector
chimpanzee pictures
Snow+tiger+cubs+wallpaper
felixen
Apr 16, 01:41 AM
I hope not, I read that the next iphone might have a camera flash and I dont see one in these pictures. The flash is essential. The lack of one nearly made me decide not to get the current iphone. Either flash or the new technology that makes the pictures just as bright.. DO IT
lostontheisland
Apr 5, 04:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
better than being angry over someone elses opinion.
I'm not angry. There's a difference between being angry and having a civilized argument that DOESN'T involve name calling.
first-chill!, second-chill a little more, third-am i not within my own rights to call something as i see it?or is that reserved solely for you?the choice of words i use are just that my choice so take your opinion about me elsewhere as after some thought iv decided I couldn't care any less what you say.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
better than being angry over someone elses opinion.
I'm not angry. There's a difference between being angry and having a civilized argument that DOESN'T involve name calling.
first-chill!, second-chill a little more, third-am i not within my own rights to call something as i see it?or is that reserved solely for you?the choice of words i use are just that my choice so take your opinion about me elsewhere as after some thought iv decided I couldn't care any less what you say.
wvuwhat
Dec 4, 07:29 PM
The perk is only 200 bullets into an enemy chopper for Hardline pro (I think that's the one, but maybe not). You could have just caught him in one of the 2 lives that it would have taken him to achieve this.
If you want a good team, you have to have a group of at least 4 friends that are serious about the game, all with mics. I've realized this during my short time span with this game and MW2.
I've recently been tearing people up with 4 good friends every other night or so for 3 or 4 games of "Headquarters."
I will say I am not happy with all the bugs in this game, which is why I'm not playing more. The parties of 3 or 4 of your friends, usually every 1 out of 3 games, you lose at least one player and have to back out and start again. Then, there's the losing connection to server and connection interrupted.
I like the game, I really do, I like the differences in the maps and the amount of maps that are available, but there's some times where I just get so pissed off that I turn it off in the middle of the game. Especially when I get into a lobby with ALL 3/4/5/10th prestiges and I'm just a lowly first prestige.
Either way, anyone with a ps3 that is "decent" with the game, friend me @ "DUBVMOUNTAINEERS"
If you want a good team, you have to have a group of at least 4 friends that are serious about the game, all with mics. I've realized this during my short time span with this game and MW2.
I've recently been tearing people up with 4 good friends every other night or so for 3 or 4 games of "Headquarters."
I will say I am not happy with all the bugs in this game, which is why I'm not playing more. The parties of 3 or 4 of your friends, usually every 1 out of 3 games, you lose at least one player and have to back out and start again. Then, there's the losing connection to server and connection interrupted.
I like the game, I really do, I like the differences in the maps and the amount of maps that are available, but there's some times where I just get so pissed off that I turn it off in the middle of the game. Especially when I get into a lobby with ALL 3/4/5/10th prestiges and I'm just a lowly first prestige.
Either way, anyone with a ps3 that is "decent" with the game, friend me @ "DUBVMOUNTAINEERS"
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 10:35 AM
already exists - Amazon Cloud/Music Player
What's go good about it?
It's like dropbox but free for 5GB. :rolleyes:
What's go good about it?
It's like dropbox but free for 5GB. :rolleyes:
OllyW
Sep 28, 12:48 PM
Now hopefully these pretty town bureaucrats approve this in short order and then get back to their usual important functions, like telling people what colors they can paint their mailboxes.
It that an iPhone autospell or are they really good looking. :D
It that an iPhone autospell or are they really good looking. :D
iMikeT
Aug 7, 08:15 PM
Here comes my 23" display.
xAnthony
Mar 19, 03:34 AM
So again, it's a freaking phone... It's not a status symbol.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
Quboid
Jan 12, 12:41 AM
Wow, I just watched the keynote and my god this guy is hard to stand. I've watched previous keynotes and he never seemed this bad. The charisma he's displayed in the past has been replaced with smugness. He acted like the iPhone was the second coming of christ and we were so lucky that he existed to bring it upon us.
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given. No hardware updates. No 10.5 preview. Not even iLife and iWork '07! Plus, very people I know are going to be interested in spending $600 + $60 a month or more to use this phone while plenty of us would love to spend $300 or $400 or even more on a full-screen video iPod. God, I wish this keynote was all some nightmare and in the real one Apple actually gave us something we wanted.
i totally agree with you. "aint that just cool?" "probably the best photo management program in the world".
he's was pretty hard to stand.
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given. No hardware updates. No 10.5 preview. Not even iLife and iWork '07! Plus, very people I know are going to be interested in spending $600 + $60 a month or more to use this phone while plenty of us would love to spend $300 or $400 or even more on a full-screen video iPod. God, I wish this keynote was all some nightmare and in the real one Apple actually gave us something we wanted.
i totally agree with you. "aint that just cool?" "probably the best photo management program in the world".
he's was pretty hard to stand.
asencif
Oct 17, 09:13 AM
The better technology for the future is definitely Blu-Ray, however it may be trying to make it's way too early and that is working against it. Prices are just too high right now for Blu-Ray drives and discs and the PS3 is a gaming system that is just too pricey.
HD-DVD is much simpler and has a more recognizeable name and getting much cheaper which a lot of times is what the consumer market will favor. Right now it's still going to be another 2 years before people start looking away from DVD itself. How many people have a HDTV right now? When I say people I mean non-tech aficionados like us in these forums.
HD-DVD is much simpler and has a more recognizeable name and getting much cheaper which a lot of times is what the consumer market will favor. Right now it's still going to be another 2 years before people start looking away from DVD itself. How many people have a HDTV right now? When I say people I mean non-tech aficionados like us in these forums.
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
White+tiger+cubs+wallpaper
Views points cubs wallpaper
Tiger cub Wallpaper
Tiger Cub animal wallpaper
Sumatran tiger 2
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
AP_piano295
Apr 25, 02:36 PM
my question is what would you have McDonalds employees do.
You are asking teenagers to get involved in a fight and try to break it up.
Not really something you expect the average person of the street to do why should teenagers working and McDonalds be any different.
Heck most of the time betting/ fights are over before the brain finishes processing "Is that really happening?" followed by "Should I do anything?" Most of the time they get stuck in an endless loop of not sure what to do and the fight or flight responses takes over.
While the people doing the beating deserve to rot in jail at the same time I would not expect the employees to do anything other than really call the cops. This is one would you expect a person of the street to do something other than really call the cops and it is still over by the time the above loop is completed.
Well I don't know about you but if I saw someone beating the **** out of someone else while I'm working I would certainly get involved. And I would expect the same consideration from others.
If your employed somewhere part of your job is keeping the peace.
You are asking teenagers to get involved in a fight and try to break it up.
Not really something you expect the average person of the street to do why should teenagers working and McDonalds be any different.
Heck most of the time betting/ fights are over before the brain finishes processing "Is that really happening?" followed by "Should I do anything?" Most of the time they get stuck in an endless loop of not sure what to do and the fight or flight responses takes over.
While the people doing the beating deserve to rot in jail at the same time I would not expect the employees to do anything other than really call the cops. This is one would you expect a person of the street to do something other than really call the cops and it is still over by the time the above loop is completed.
Well I don't know about you but if I saw someone beating the **** out of someone else while I'm working I would certainly get involved. And I would expect the same consideration from others.
If your employed somewhere part of your job is keeping the peace.
Applejuiced
Apr 22, 01:11 PM
On IE7 whenever I click either the "up" or "down" arrow I get taken back to the forum index.
Same here.
It was working fine yesterday but today it just takes me to the forum index.
I got IE9 installed btw.
Same here.
It was working fine yesterday but today it just takes me to the forum index.
I got IE9 installed btw.
sesnir
Mar 28, 07:23 PM
Is there a sign-up page, or are all apps automatically considered? Not that I'd ever win, but still ;)
zedsdead
Apr 29, 03:51 PM
Bummer, I really liked the iOS-style scrollbars. My favorite thing about Lion is the inverted scrolling. It feels more natural on a touchpad once you get used to it.
I agree. I am using scroll reverser on Snow Leopard right now and enjoy it a lot. After about a day or two it becomes more natural.
I agree. I am using scroll reverser on Snow Leopard right now and enjoy it a lot. After about a day or two it becomes more natural.
RawBert
Apr 29, 01:20 PM
Damn, I can't wait for the public release of this.
r.j.s
Jan 13, 04:17 PM
What I'm wondering is.. if Gizmodo never posted that video, would we have heard about it anyway? As in, would there be news stories saying "Pranksters hit CES hard by turning off displays"
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
Chances are, the presenters all thought they had come kind of HW failure/ power failure up until the point Gizmodo posted their footage.
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
Chances are, the presenters all thought they had come kind of HW failure/ power failure up until the point Gizmodo posted their footage.
whoooaaahhhh
Oct 2, 03:01 PM
So when will Real be dead? I have a feeling that after our inevitable nuclear war, it'll just be cockroaches, twinkies and them. At least they'll be in good company.
Jon'sLightBulbs
Nov 27, 09:25 PM
Look at these numbers. Is that anything to write home about?
Shure E3C headphones for 139 instead of 199? I think you should write grandma immediately. Boy do they sound sweet!
Shure E3C headphones for 139 instead of 199? I think you should write grandma immediately. Boy do they sound sweet!
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.
JohnnyQuest
Mar 17, 01:20 AM
He probably did pocket the cash, since he asked if everything was cool when he handed me the bag, that def ran through my mind a few times.
Seriously?
:rolleyes:
Seriously?
:rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment