Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
rdowns
Nov 28, 04:30 PM
Perhaps Microsoft should have a "switch" campaign like Apple for the Zune. Showing all the wonderful things like radio and squirting music and photos.
Radio, puhleeze. Isn't that why we have iPods? So we don't have to listen to crappy repetitive manufactured artist radio.
Squirting, huh? - I'll coin the term now. Zune Splooge™ - squirting a crappy song to my Zune.
Radio, puhleeze. Isn't that why we have iPods? So we don't have to listen to crappy repetitive manufactured artist radio.
Squirting, huh? - I'll coin the term now. Zune Splooge™ - squirting a crappy song to my Zune.
N10248
Mar 24, 01:40 PM
That's not clever at all. You'd still be stuck with the Intel GPU on the internal screen.
Not if they redesign the Macbooks so the video signal goes back the other way down the thunderbolt cable and directly to the display.
Although using a 2GB HD 6970 on a 1280x800 display is a bit silly.
Not if they redesign the Macbooks so the video signal goes back the other way down the thunderbolt cable and directly to the display.
Although using a 2GB HD 6970 on a 1280x800 display is a bit silly.
aznguyen316
Sep 12, 08:39 PM
I got Night Sky (very dark blue).
do you have a picture? I assumed it would be dark blue but the pictures look like violet.
do you have a picture? I assumed it would be dark blue but the pictures look like violet.
andrew.gw
Apr 3, 06:30 AM
If you scroll up over the icon of a closed app in the dock you see thumbnails of those recent files. Pretty cool.
Hey, that's pretty awesome! I wish that would work with Expos�, for open applications...
Hey, that's pretty awesome! I wish that would work with Expos�, for open applications...
flopticalcube
Apr 9, 05:01 PM
Yes. Left or right hand drive. I prefer a right hand drive manual as I'm left handed. Lucky for me they moved the stick shift to the middle of the car from the outside many years ago.
razzmatazz
Sep 6, 02:34 PM
i know this is off topic but are they ever gonna do anything about the outrageous cost of .Mac subscription?
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
skiltrip
Sep 30, 10:16 AM
I'm still rocking my eBay Hong Kong cases. Order a couple more earlier in the week to the tune of $1.99 each. Got a gel style smoke colored case, and a clear hard snap on case. Both from seller Ashopone. I like trying out different cases for only a buck or two each.
I tried out the Grip Vue at my local Best Buy. One of the green ones was already torn open, so I figured what the hell and popped in on my iPod. I loved the fit, but I didn't like the feel of the buttons. It's like I wasn't getting any feedback at all. Wasn't sure if I was pressing it or not. Do you people with Grip Vue find the buttons awkward feeling, or are they ok on yours?
I tried out the Grip Vue at my local Best Buy. One of the green ones was already torn open, so I figured what the hell and popped in on my iPod. I loved the fit, but I didn't like the feel of the buttons. It's like I wasn't getting any feedback at all. Wasn't sure if I was pressing it or not. Do you people with Grip Vue find the buttons awkward feeling, or are they ok on yours?
richard.mac
Feb 17, 09:55 PM
those are pretty standard sized studio monitoring speakers. i like the audio interface which one is it? is it a DAC and headphone amp too?
Fuzzputer
Jan 3, 03:44 PM
I for one don't. I think what the rumors are referring to is a "netboot" device over wi-max (and Edge or its replacement) in a handheld form factor.
...
Rocketman
Now this would be something REALLY NEW!!:eek:
If it had GPS capabilities and an organizer and the stuff you find in a PDA, I think I could drool for it...
...
Rocketman
Now this would be something REALLY NEW!!:eek:
If it had GPS capabilities and an organizer and the stuff you find in a PDA, I think I could drool for it...
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:28 AM
bmustaf
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.
RITZFit
Jan 22, 02:03 PM
it's been gone for a while.
Good news! Atleast your kids can be cool :D
Good news! Atleast your kids can be cool :D
Herdfan
Apr 19, 04:08 PM
i wish they could wait and roll out the new imacs w/ Lion in June. im trying to hold out...its hard...lol
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
zap2
Apr 8, 04:00 PM
So who's Obama gonna blow up next? Syria, Yemen?
Not just Obama's attack....yes, signed on, but there was a request for rebels. I don't have as issue with the West using their military power for support, but there should be an internal force that wants the change and us strong enough to at least use some force without the West.
Not just Obama's attack....yes, signed on, but there was a request for rebels. I don't have as issue with the West using their military power for support, but there should be an internal force that wants the change and us strong enough to at least use some force without the West.
Tailpike1153
Mar 22, 03:50 PM
The chance that the iPod Classic is updated to 220GB is zero. Apple has no plans to ever update a hard drive based non-touch portable device (they would not waste their time), and they've shown even less interest in increasing the capacity of any device beyond even 64GB flash.
Tony
Is Apple's 64GB falsh memory ceiling a reflection of the market place or that Apple is now run by profit hungry cheapskates?
Tony
Is Apple's 64GB falsh memory ceiling a reflection of the market place or that Apple is now run by profit hungry cheapskates?
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 19, 05:00 PM
The great numbers shown today just prove that this is the perfect moment to bury MS once and for all in the OS war...OS X is by far the best system, and Longsight is still more than 6 months away...Microsoft is doomed.
Yeah....no....
Aren't there still more people using Windows Me/Windows 98/Windows 95 than all Mac OS users...??? People don't upgrade quickly - it would be dozens of years before Apple could even have, say, a 25% marketshare.
Yeah....no....
Aren't there still more people using Windows Me/Windows 98/Windows 95 than all Mac OS users...??? People don't upgrade quickly - it would be dozens of years before Apple could even have, say, a 25% marketshare.
Al Coholic
Apr 3, 01:15 PM
I don't think you understand how this works.
You can't be that thick. No way. You're just being a contrarian for the sake of it. Have to be.
It doesn't take much to get the iPad pom pom's a-wavin' around here.
Don't get me wrong. It's a "cute" ad but that's the point of my protest. It's just insulting. Why, if this thing is capable of so much must they resort to these kinds of antics? You guys are just gullible.
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
So the iPad saved him? So much for giving the medical staff their due. LOL!
There will be other tablets eeking out iPad's market share soon enough. Don't be too quick in lobbying the Pope for Mr. Jobs' sainthood just yet.
You can't be that thick. No way. You're just being a contrarian for the sake of it. Have to be.
It doesn't take much to get the iPad pom pom's a-wavin' around here.
Don't get me wrong. It's a "cute" ad but that's the point of my protest. It's just insulting. Why, if this thing is capable of so much must they resort to these kinds of antics? You guys are just gullible.
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
So the iPad saved him? So much for giving the medical staff their due. LOL!
There will be other tablets eeking out iPad's market share soon enough. Don't be too quick in lobbying the Pope for Mr. Jobs' sainthood just yet.
Clive At Five
Nov 28, 10:15 AM
He has a point about the XBox... It did start out slower but now is surely considered a predominant player in the market (no pun intended;) ).
The only difference is that the XBox actually works...
...and Zune...
...Squirts?
So, yeah. I mean, I'd never buy an XBox, but it's still a viable option, nonetheless.
-Clive
The only difference is that the XBox actually works...
...and Zune...
...Squirts?
So, yeah. I mean, I'd never buy an XBox, but it's still a viable option, nonetheless.
-Clive
tonjik
May 3, 09:48 AM
I wonder if they are going to implement also the iOS "shake device to undo" feature :-)
But seriously - I do not care of they implement also rightclick for the same functionality.
But seriously - I do not care of they implement also rightclick for the same functionality.
Horrortaxi
Mar 20, 08:32 AM
a hell of alot more people buy IBMs here eg: Toshiba, Hitachi and Sony.
I don't want to sound excessively picky, but only IBM makes IBM computers. Toshiba makes Toshiba computers and Sony makes Sony computers.
I don't want to sound excessively picky, but only IBM makes IBM computers. Toshiba makes Toshiba computers and Sony makes Sony computers.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:14 PM
Ok, so the text update says the screenshot is 'sexy.'
Well, I'm sold!
Well, I'm sold!
Abstract
Nov 27, 04:19 AM
After being here for 3 years, Surely he's not a troll. ;)
standingquiet
Jan 10, 07:42 PM
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
IMO F1 died along time ago it's so boring now. My favourite, most entertaining and close action racing is British and World Touring Cars.
IMO F1 died along time ago it's so boring now. My favourite, most entertaining and close action racing is British and World Touring Cars.
kadajawi
Aug 31, 04:40 AM
Are you looking for a Mac for you or your parents? :rolleyes:
Eh... both? :D They need a simple computer... -> Mac Mini. I would love to get a Mac too, but can't be bothered with machines that can't be upgraded (ok, you CAN upgrade a Mac Mini and iMac, but not that much). And a Mac Pro would just be way to expensive. I think there are quite a few users who think the same and would like to see a downgraded Mac Pro for switchers who can then keep some of their hardware.
Eh... both? :D They need a simple computer... -> Mac Mini. I would love to get a Mac too, but can't be bothered with machines that can't be upgraded (ok, you CAN upgrade a Mac Mini and iMac, but not that much). And a Mac Pro would just be way to expensive. I think there are quite a few users who think the same and would like to see a downgraded Mac Pro for switchers who can then keep some of their hardware.