Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:44 PM
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription.
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
ranviper
Apr 12, 10:04 AM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Actually the mac dock id essential the same as the windows start menu. The difference is you can put it essentially anywhere on the screen (use an app called deeper to help with this) and you can have as many apps as your heart desires. Folders and stacks as well. AND, you say out of site? Hide the dock. Easy.
Mac OS also has the recent items and "alt" tab and such. Command usually takes place of alt and/or control in mac os however. Or the apple key on older keyboards. Cheers.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Actually the mac dock id essential the same as the windows start menu. The difference is you can put it essentially anywhere on the screen (use an app called deeper to help with this) and you can have as many apps as your heart desires. Folders and stacks as well. AND, you say out of site? Hide the dock. Easy.
Mac OS also has the recent items and "alt" tab and such. Command usually takes place of alt and/or control in mac os however. Or the apple key on older keyboards. Cheers.
SugCain
Apr 13, 06:26 AM
I'm a full time editor of 12 years. I use FCP 5 days a week. Is it too much to ask for something as simple as being able to sort by date? IMO, that would put the "pro" in FCP.
williamsonrg
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
I'm really impressed with the price. Obviously they're not gonna talk about all the features this early, but so far it looks good. Will it record TV? I guess "no."
DanielCoffey
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
What's LGBT?
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
Ludeman
Sep 22, 11:09 AM
think they've sold it to me! currently got a g4 tower which does'nt play hidef to well and was thinking about either upgrading���, or getting a mini���. but now they've announced iTV(�200bargin!!!). soon i will hopefully be able serve my iTV all the media off my terrabyte hd plus the hundreds of dvd's. thanks to the ever useful "toppy"! and play it all when i want on my big hidef lcd tv and great surrond sound hi-fi in the living room thanks to iTV! personally i think apple are on to a winner, why is everbody wanting more?
Sydde
Mar 14, 11:02 AM
In case anyone was wondering. ;)
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
dAlen
Apr 13, 08:56 AM
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 04:59 PM
OK, it seems like Woodcrest was officially unveiled by Intel on July 27 and the new Mac Pros were available for purchase (same day they were announced) on August 7.
So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking! :)
Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking! :)
Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
Funkymonk
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 04:16 AM
Overclocked my Athlon 1.4GHz Tbird to 1.522GHz, benchmark results (under C#, which was fastest) did an average of 7390 milliseconds (7.39 seconds). w00t!
Gotta love overclocking.
Gotta love overclocking.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
sososowhat
Sep 26, 12:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
(expected later this quarter to PC manufacturers according to Daily Tech).
That would mean sometime in the next 5 days.
(expected later this quarter to PC manufacturers according to Daily Tech).
That would mean sometime in the next 5 days.
TuckBodi
May 12, 10:12 AM
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
Maybe you can help me out...I bought my 2G iPhone the day it was released. I did my research and knew I was going to lose a few bars going from T-Mo to AT$T. At home (where I work) I was getting 3 bars, which was 'okay.' A year later it dropped a bar and a year after that it dropped another bar+. I've swapped out phones and etc. AT$T continues to blame me, Apple, my trees, my microwave and even my fridge.
About 2 months ago I was finally creeping up to the 2-3 bar range and was again getting okay service. Then all of a sudden, about a week ago, I'm back to 1 bar and multiple dropped calls a day. What gives?
In the meantime I've been doing my *research* on Verizon and hoping Apple finally makes the jump in June.
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
Maybe you can help me out...I bought my 2G iPhone the day it was released. I did my research and knew I was going to lose a few bars going from T-Mo to AT$T. At home (where I work) I was getting 3 bars, which was 'okay.' A year later it dropped a bar and a year after that it dropped another bar+. I've swapped out phones and etc. AT$T continues to blame me, Apple, my trees, my microwave and even my fridge.
About 2 months ago I was finally creeping up to the 2-3 bar range and was again getting okay service. Then all of a sudden, about a week ago, I'm back to 1 bar and multiple dropped calls a day. What gives?
In the meantime I've been doing my *research* on Verizon and hoping Apple finally makes the jump in June.
ElCidRo
May 2, 09:05 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
carfac
Sep 12, 06:55 PM
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
OK, I will grant this- but the software is (NOT YET) HD. Suppose it will be, though. But the TIVO is also HD, so the point is mute
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
And you see this as an advantage??? I do not have much HD space left, so I must buy ANOTHER box for that, too? No, I want it all in one. Point TIVO
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
ANOTHER Flipping Box for me to add??? So I have iTV, a Mac, Another HD, and now this???? Vs. a TIVO box. Yeah, no brainer here! Tivo Point
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
Look at the box- no room for an optivcal drive. So, add one to my mac, or add another flipping box. On top of whick, do you REALLY think the studios are going to let something out that will easily go to a disk? No Point.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
You have never set up a Tivo, have you? No Point.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years
This is an arguement with no basis. Why, because you say so? Because you are an Apple Fan Boy, and apple can do no wrong?
The thing is, I do not want 500 boxes in my living room, and 400 remotes to control all the different aspects of it. I want something all in one box, that works without me having to add something.
This MAY be an option for techno-nerds and such, but it is by no means a Tivo Killer- it does not even compare.
d
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
OK, I will grant this- but the software is (NOT YET) HD. Suppose it will be, though. But the TIVO is also HD, so the point is mute
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
And you see this as an advantage??? I do not have much HD space left, so I must buy ANOTHER box for that, too? No, I want it all in one. Point TIVO
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
ANOTHER Flipping Box for me to add??? So I have iTV, a Mac, Another HD, and now this???? Vs. a TIVO box. Yeah, no brainer here! Tivo Point
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
Look at the box- no room for an optivcal drive. So, add one to my mac, or add another flipping box. On top of whick, do you REALLY think the studios are going to let something out that will easily go to a disk? No Point.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
You have never set up a Tivo, have you? No Point.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years
This is an arguement with no basis. Why, because you say so? Because you are an Apple Fan Boy, and apple can do no wrong?
The thing is, I do not want 500 boxes in my living room, and 400 remotes to control all the different aspects of it. I want something all in one box, that works without me having to add something.
This MAY be an option for techno-nerds and such, but it is by no means a Tivo Killer- it does not even compare.
d
2ndname
Apr 10, 10:16 PM
I like to run both. I love Apple due to their simplicity. IMO it just focuses on working. You want to edit photos, get an Apple that is powerful enough to do that and it just works. You want to just surf the web, get an entry level Apple based on your preference (iPhone/iPad/Notebooks/etc.) and it just works. I'm actually waiting on the iMac refresh to set my fiance up with her first Apple desktop. I got her an iPad 2 and she loves it. For her, it's great to have a product that will work based on what she needs it for (Movie watching, surfing the web, editing photos). The fact that it looks clean and modern is a plus.
As for myself, I work in the IT field and our shop runs Windows. I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology. I'm glad that we have options.
As for myself, I work in the IT field and our shop runs Windows. I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology. I'm glad that we have options.
wekes
Aug 29, 04:47 PM
I remember getting my old Power Mac 7500 in an ugly brown box with a message on it saying that apple wasn't using dyed boxes in order to help the environment. That's fine with me. However, I retrospect, I promptly dumped that box in the trash and acutally still use my newer and prettier dyed Apple boxes as storage containers in my storage room--something I never would have done with the ugly, wimpier brown one. So much for the borwn box helping the environment.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
slinger1968
Nov 3, 04:18 AM
I could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
dduff617
Sep 20, 01:31 AM
given what i know of the device, including it's form factor, i am skeptical about the report the it contains a hard drive.
mdriftmeyer
Apr 12, 11:19 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Grow some perspective.
Ljohnson72
Jan 28, 10:59 PM
Because Android isn't an OS that is on multiple devices on multiple carriers. :rolleyes:
ct2k7
Oct 7, 03:27 PM
What are you guys talking about?
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
No comments:
Post a Comment