Thunderbird
Apr 2, 08:12 PM
Is this the same Narrator that does the Ken Burns films?
Not sure who does the Ken Burns doc narrations. But I'm pretty sure this voice over for the iPad 2 was done by Peter Coyote.
Not sure who does the Ken Burns doc narrations. But I'm pretty sure this voice over for the iPad 2 was done by Peter Coyote.
Steven1621
Mar 18, 11:09 PM
i question the need for this since apple did make quite a bit of money last quarter.
SciFrog
Mar 30, 08:58 AM
I decided I don't need to right now so it's back to bigadv units now.
Your PPD has improved a lot :eek:
Still no new Mac Pro announced...
On another note, I updated four computer to 10.6.3 that were running a3 and all of them resumed and finished. Can't wait for a3 bigadv.
Also rumors are all over the place for PPD on the new Nvidia GTX 480. Soem say 13k PPD, some say 29k...
Your PPD has improved a lot :eek:
Still no new Mac Pro announced...
On another note, I updated four computer to 10.6.3 that were running a3 and all of them resumed and finished. Can't wait for a3 bigadv.
Also rumors are all over the place for PPD on the new Nvidia GTX 480. Soem say 13k PPD, some say 29k...
ingenious
Mar 28, 01:49 PM
Apple does not need to enter the 500 dollar market- Steve Jobs has said it himself. He himself has compared Apple to BMW among others to show that Apple is the luxury company right now. They're not going to waste quality for quanity and just try to sell machines. Read it in an interview from him. The point is, Apple IS NOT DYING! It's a debt free company, has billions in cash, is leading the MP3 Player and Online Music store industry, has what was and is still almost the worlds fastest personal computer. It has the best OS, and more and more people are switching, its just that there are more people going to PCs than macs (new users). APPLE IS NOT DYING! STEVE IS BACK. :D :D :D :D
kadajawi
Sep 7, 03:36 AM
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Yes, I was about to build one with a Athlon 64 3000+ (doesn't eat up electricity like the P4... and with RM Clock or so you can reduce power consumption quite a bit additionally. The default voltages are usually far above whats needed, both AMDs I've built run perfectly with 1.1V (standard is 1.4 to 1.45), unfortunately it isn't possible to lover the voltage further), 512 MB RAM, 160 GB HD, onboard graphics, DVDR, in a 9x27.5x35 cm enclosure. Price with Windows: around 400 �. Bluetooth and WiFi is lacking, but shouldn't add too much. In comparison the Mac Mini Core Solo was 600 � at that time. I'd consider both systems comparable... Mini has front row, BT and WiFi, PC has better connectivity (especially on the display side), 100 gig more HD, DVD writer, card reader. Quite a price difference to me.
Lack of OS X + iLife, the upgrade to Core Duo, student discount and the printer promo made me chose the Mac Mini.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Yes, I was about to build one with a Athlon 64 3000+ (doesn't eat up electricity like the P4... and with RM Clock or so you can reduce power consumption quite a bit additionally. The default voltages are usually far above whats needed, both AMDs I've built run perfectly with 1.1V (standard is 1.4 to 1.45), unfortunately it isn't possible to lover the voltage further), 512 MB RAM, 160 GB HD, onboard graphics, DVDR, in a 9x27.5x35 cm enclosure. Price with Windows: around 400 �. Bluetooth and WiFi is lacking, but shouldn't add too much. In comparison the Mac Mini Core Solo was 600 � at that time. I'd consider both systems comparable... Mini has front row, BT and WiFi, PC has better connectivity (especially on the display side), 100 gig more HD, DVD writer, card reader. Quite a price difference to me.
Lack of OS X + iLife, the upgrade to Core Duo, student discount and the printer promo made me chose the Mac Mini.
WCat
Jul 19, 05:10 PM
Like some others here have asked, I just have to wonder how some of these top-tier analysts manage to maintain cred with such lousy predictions? Not only were they off on the numbers quite a bit, but they were also off in the overall direction. That's pretty major.
Leave it to Apple to prove the "common knowledge" wrong yet again! Isn't that what they're best at??
Leave it to Apple to prove the "common knowledge" wrong yet again! Isn't that what they're best at??
furi0usbee
Jun 23, 09:12 AM
Touch screen iMacs would be the stupidest idea. First, to keep reaching up over the keyboard and having to touch the screen would get tiring about a minute in. Second, I keep my screen spotless, and now I'm going to introduce greasy fingerprints?
Right now, there is NO WAY to get bits in a computer and interact with your computer faster than a mouse/keyboard. Sorry, but that's the fastest way. Touch works perfectly for the iPad and iPhone. Put that in an iMac, besides a gimmick, it sucks hard.
Why not just release a 15" iPad then? Touch needs an OS to be built from the ground up, like iOS. Touch in OS X sounds pretty silly.
EDIT: Also, the finger is not nearly precise as a mouse pointer or stylus, and we know Apple hates those. So I give the finger to this idea. I thought it was April 1st when reading this.
Right now, there is NO WAY to get bits in a computer and interact with your computer faster than a mouse/keyboard. Sorry, but that's the fastest way. Touch works perfectly for the iPad and iPhone. Put that in an iMac, besides a gimmick, it sucks hard.
Why not just release a 15" iPad then? Touch needs an OS to be built from the ground up, like iOS. Touch in OS X sounds pretty silly.
EDIT: Also, the finger is not nearly precise as a mouse pointer or stylus, and we know Apple hates those. So I give the finger to this idea. I thought it was April 1st when reading this.
corywoolf
Sep 6, 03:26 PM
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
iBorg20181
Oct 24, 01:07 AM
all i can say about this thread is MEH... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
it seems that every week there is a new fu*#ing thread about impending macbook pro updates. if you want one now - just go buy it. my macbook pro rips the socks of my g5. :eek:
if you are waiting for something special going by figures on the core2duo, it will be ripping the socks of the current macbook pro by 10 % . :rolleyes:
we are only talking seconds here - maybe your boot time will be 5 sec quicker than a current model. maybe you will be able to encode a movie 30 seconds quicker (mind you this type of operation takes minutes to complete) . are you going to specially go out and check that yours boots better than a current model one?? if you are, then well... umm - see a doctor first :p
are you really going to put the processors to the test and run them at full utilization for long periods of time to prove all these things? if you do, your macbook pro will self combust through the table, or even worse - your lap!!:eek:
finally, all of these new components that everyone is waiting for generate more heat. more ram, new video cards, and chips will generate more heat. macbook pro's are hot enough.... to accommodate all of these new hotter components, a new cooling system would need to be developed. these things take time.
i reakon there will be a minor speed bump (.3 of a Ghz mind you... :rolleyes: ) next week and a total revision at macworld in january - 90 days from now...
flame me if you wish but just sit back and think about real life scenario's where a core 2 duo will REALLY be of massive benefit to you.... santa rosa is the platform you should wait for.
aussie_geek
aussie_geek: since this upgrade is so trivial and meaningless to you ..... why do you keep reading and posting in this thread? LOL!
I've been waiting for this upgrade since Core Duo debuted in January, and I'll be up, bright and early, to order a C2D MBP in the morning! wOOt!
:D
iBorg
it seems that every week there is a new fu*#ing thread about impending macbook pro updates. if you want one now - just go buy it. my macbook pro rips the socks of my g5. :eek:
if you are waiting for something special going by figures on the core2duo, it will be ripping the socks of the current macbook pro by 10 % . :rolleyes:
we are only talking seconds here - maybe your boot time will be 5 sec quicker than a current model. maybe you will be able to encode a movie 30 seconds quicker (mind you this type of operation takes minutes to complete) . are you going to specially go out and check that yours boots better than a current model one?? if you are, then well... umm - see a doctor first :p
are you really going to put the processors to the test and run them at full utilization for long periods of time to prove all these things? if you do, your macbook pro will self combust through the table, or even worse - your lap!!:eek:
finally, all of these new components that everyone is waiting for generate more heat. more ram, new video cards, and chips will generate more heat. macbook pro's are hot enough.... to accommodate all of these new hotter components, a new cooling system would need to be developed. these things take time.
i reakon there will be a minor speed bump (.3 of a Ghz mind you... :rolleyes: ) next week and a total revision at macworld in january - 90 days from now...
flame me if you wish but just sit back and think about real life scenario's where a core 2 duo will REALLY be of massive benefit to you.... santa rosa is the platform you should wait for.
aussie_geek
aussie_geek: since this upgrade is so trivial and meaningless to you ..... why do you keep reading and posting in this thread? LOL!
I've been waiting for this upgrade since Core Duo debuted in January, and I'll be up, bright and early, to order a C2D MBP in the morning! wOOt!
:D
iBorg
extrafuzzyllama
Sep 28, 11:51 AM
where can i get some quality silicon cases? i have stayed away from silicon cases since the ipod with click wheel because it collected dust and link and when i tired cleaning it off it just got worst and now with my new ipod touch 4 i am going to try a silicon until a switcheasy case is made
i am just looking for a simple silicon case
thx
i am just looking for a simple silicon case
thx
fahadqureshi
Apr 26, 02:01 PM
i think the word app store in it self is generic, mainly since app is just short for application which is just another word for a program. but then again most people didn't use the word app or even applications widely enough until apple started using it, and instead used the more generic 'program'.
The only trademark apple is entitled to should be iAppstore especially since they chose to call their book store iBookstore instead of just 'Book Store'
Everyone should just blame Microsoft for having a "Add or Remove Programs" instead of a "Add or Remove Applications" in their control panel. :rolleyes:
that way applications or apps would have been a more generic term.
The only trademark apple is entitled to should be iAppstore especially since they chose to call their book store iBookstore instead of just 'Book Store'
Everyone should just blame Microsoft for having a "Add or Remove Programs" instead of a "Add or Remove Applications" in their control panel. :rolleyes:
that way applications or apps would have been a more generic term.
skunk
Mar 27, 08:59 AM
He even says that European Command is headed by a US Admiral.Really? How shocking! Imagine, the US European Command, headed by an American! Next you'll be telling us that the US President is an American, too.
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:35 PM
What is the chin. Though, i have heard people talking about it and they said that if there is a 23" it is possible for Apple to eliminate it.
Read the first part of the thread. It's the white border underneath the display. It's where the parts are housed that don't fit behind the display. Well, maybe that's not entirely true. That space is needed for the space behind the display isn't big enough to house all the internals.
So, when a 23" iMac would be released, it will have a whole lot of extra space behind that considerably bigger display. Thus, they might just drop the 'chin'.
Read the first part of the thread. It's the white border underneath the display. It's where the parts are housed that don't fit behind the display. Well, maybe that's not entirely true. That space is needed for the space behind the display isn't big enough to house all the internals.
So, when a 23" iMac would be released, it will have a whole lot of extra space behind that considerably bigger display. Thus, they might just drop the 'chin'.
imac_japan
Apr 2, 04:39 AM
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
You have some good points here....but the basic arguement is how to survive in the future - How to grow the business....Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, the ipod is going to have too many similar players. So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
You have some good points here....but the basic arguement is how to survive in the future - How to grow the business....Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, the ipod is going to have too many similar players. So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
bretm
Sep 7, 10:16 AM
Netflix is made for movies! I love Apple but they'll never do for movies what Netflix has! In the past 5 weeks, I've had 21 movies delivered to my door. I'm on the 3-at-a-time plan (unlimited for $17.99/mo). Also, I can buy tons of used DVDs for $5.99 that are 100% guaranteed!
I think a dollar a song is one thing because you can pick and choose from an album so the trade-off for quality is justified. However, $9.99 is a lot to ask for something that is very low quality, only looks really good an a 2" screen and takes a long time to download. Right now, we don't even know if you can back the file up or burn to a DVD. I think Apple will do ok, but I don't see it being the same bonanza that that music was/is.
Netflix will slow down your service most likely. You'll start to see online that the movies you've sent back haven't quite cleared yet and that movies being sent out start to slow down.
Unless things have changed recently. But that's what they've done in the past.
I think a dollar a song is one thing because you can pick and choose from an album so the trade-off for quality is justified. However, $9.99 is a lot to ask for something that is very low quality, only looks really good an a 2" screen and takes a long time to download. Right now, we don't even know if you can back the file up or burn to a DVD. I think Apple will do ok, but I don't see it being the same bonanza that that music was/is.
Netflix will slow down your service most likely. You'll start to see online that the movies you've sent back haven't quite cleared yet and that movies being sent out start to slow down.
Unless things have changed recently. But that's what they've done in the past.
cube
Mar 24, 04:37 PM
True, but its a wait for the overzealot AMD CPU fan base. AMD is very well behind Intel right now in CPUs. Their 6-core offerings barely match the processing power of a i7-870; which is a 4-core, 1156 socket! They can't even match the 1366 socket yet... not to mention the monster of a CPU that is the i7-980X.
On the server, AMD has inexpensive 12-core, 4-way CPUs since some time. Now going for 16-core with Bulldozer (well, now it will be more like 16-core integer/8-core floating point).
The absolute bargain now are the 8-core, 4-way CPUs. You can have a 32-core machine for very little money.
The the next Atom will have a DirectX 10.1 GPU, meanwhile Bobcat Fusion already has DirectX 11 hardware and OpenCL.
On the server, AMD has inexpensive 12-core, 4-way CPUs since some time. Now going for 16-core with Bulldozer (well, now it will be more like 16-core integer/8-core floating point).
The absolute bargain now are the 8-core, 4-way CPUs. You can have a 32-core machine for very little money.
The the next Atom will have a DirectX 10.1 GPU, meanwhile Bobcat Fusion already has DirectX 11 hardware and OpenCL.
PBF
Apr 1, 09:33 PM
Google Chrome Beta and regular version allow me to use them for around a minute, and then crash. Anyone else having this problem, and how to fix?
I already submitted a bug report.
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
I already submitted a bug report.
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
longofest
Jul 13, 10:37 PM
So, how long till it comes to laptops? :D
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
Really, the only company that is actually selling laptops with Bluray drives in them currently is Sony with their Viao. Pioneer has a desktop reader, but it is very expensive (around $1000 USD). BenQ has recently announced that in late August it will be shipping a Bluray burner for a bit above $1000, but not sure if its going to be availbable in the US. The prices are pretty fixed mainly because of Sony apparently. I couldn't really go into it in the story, but there is soooo much to this whole Bluray thing, its ridiculous.
The focal point of Bluray has really turned on Sony's Playstation 3. There are a lot of conspiracy theories (that supposedly have a lot of reason behind them) that Sony isn't letting the price of Bluray players go down until the Playstation 3 comes out.
Then you have the format war between HD DVD and Bluray. HD DVD has not only beaten Bluray to the market, but is beating them on price as well, although not as dramatically as once thought might happen.
I speculate that we could see a Bluray drive as a build to order option perhaps in the first revision of the Mac Pro, or perhaps as standard in the high-end model, but that very well could not happen until the first revision like the analyst said early next year.
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
Really, the only company that is actually selling laptops with Bluray drives in them currently is Sony with their Viao. Pioneer has a desktop reader, but it is very expensive (around $1000 USD). BenQ has recently announced that in late August it will be shipping a Bluray burner for a bit above $1000, but not sure if its going to be availbable in the US. The prices are pretty fixed mainly because of Sony apparently. I couldn't really go into it in the story, but there is soooo much to this whole Bluray thing, its ridiculous.
The focal point of Bluray has really turned on Sony's Playstation 3. There are a lot of conspiracy theories (that supposedly have a lot of reason behind them) that Sony isn't letting the price of Bluray players go down until the Playstation 3 comes out.
Then you have the format war between HD DVD and Bluray. HD DVD has not only beaten Bluray to the market, but is beating them on price as well, although not as dramatically as once thought might happen.
I speculate that we could see a Bluray drive as a build to order option perhaps in the first revision of the Mac Pro, or perhaps as standard in the high-end model, but that very well could not happen until the first revision like the analyst said early next year.
lordonuthin
Mar 18, 01:30 PM
ill try my best to explain haha.
its running off my imac i7 machine (in sig).
edit: ok dw i installed the system preferences pane and now its running fine :D (didnt realise there was one!). is there anyway to control the amount of cores/CPU usage? and also to view the images of it computing? check your stats? hehe
my network usage is sitting on 9.4MB/s now. how odd....
As far as network usage, the folding clients seem to do quite a bit of that for some reason, I haven't heard a good explanation for it though, but I have really looked for one :p
I think there is a place in the last pane for additional parameters you can add "-smp 8" (without the quotes) or other parameters like "-bigadv" if you have a key. I can't remember now how to get the key :rolleyes:
Glad you got it going finally:)
A good stats site is kakaostats (http://kakaostats.com/tsum.php?t=3446)
its running off my imac i7 machine (in sig).
edit: ok dw i installed the system preferences pane and now its running fine :D (didnt realise there was one!). is there anyway to control the amount of cores/CPU usage? and also to view the images of it computing? check your stats? hehe
my network usage is sitting on 9.4MB/s now. how odd....
As far as network usage, the folding clients seem to do quite a bit of that for some reason, I haven't heard a good explanation for it though, but I have really looked for one :p
I think there is a place in the last pane for additional parameters you can add "-smp 8" (without the quotes) or other parameters like "-bigadv" if you have a key. I can't remember now how to get the key :rolleyes:
Glad you got it going finally:)
A good stats site is kakaostats (http://kakaostats.com/tsum.php?t=3446)
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 19, 12:39 PM
I don't know if this goes along with it. But Best Buy has recently sold out online of the Mac Pro as well. A few weeks ago the $2500 one sold out, and I just checked today and the $3500 is sold out as well. I bet Apple refreshes both the iMac and the Mac Pro real soon.
amac4me
Aug 29, 09:26 AM
Without the Core 2 Duo, this would be a dissapointment.:mad:
bristleworm
Mar 24, 02:11 PM
Interestingly, the broad range of cards apparently fully supported under Mac OS X 10.6.7 is leading to speculation that Apple may be looking to support more off-the-shelf GPU options as opposed to the Mac-specific cards that have been used to date.
Wrong! With Steve taking his leave this can only mean one thing: restart of the clone-program! :eek:
;)
Wrong! With Steve taking his leave this can only mean one thing: restart of the clone-program! :eek:
;)
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.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 03:23 AM
Those sound like very reasonable expectations to me, but Apple specializes in the unexpected! :cool:
hdmi monitors? i'm not completely savy in the technology but if they begin to use standards such as Blu-ray will dvi stand up
hdmi monitors? i'm not completely savy in the technology but if they begin to use standards such as Blu-ray will dvi stand up
No comments:
Post a Comment