MacNut
Apr 27, 04:40 PM
missed that one. fully agree.
why? men and women can't share a basin to wash their hands? many places already have unisex restrooms. As long as it is known, there shouldn't be any problem.
I really don't see any reasons, other than people being stuck in their old conventions. it would surely simplify my life when I am around town with my kids.Would sexual harassment claims rise if we had unisex bathrooms.
why? men and women can't share a basin to wash their hands? many places already have unisex restrooms. As long as it is known, there shouldn't be any problem.
I really don't see any reasons, other than people being stuck in their old conventions. it would surely simplify my life when I am around town with my kids.Would sexual harassment claims rise if we had unisex bathrooms.
Eso
Apr 5, 03:20 PM
Well at least there will be an app in the app store that uses iAds.
sunfast
Sep 12, 07:37 AM
Does this mean we won't be seeing iTunes 7.0? I mean if they were releasing a new iTunes wouldn't they make the changes on the new release?
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
Lynxpoint
Mar 24, 08:50 PM
Happy Birthday.
It is so true how OS X was a major turning point for Apple. One of the things that I always thought set Apple apart was their willingness to drastically alter course when needed. I remember the System 7, 8, 9 days well. I liked working on Macs, but at the time Windows NT was a more robust beast. When a suitcase can crash your machine, you know something is wrong. So along came OS X, and it surpassed MS for many years. For MS today, I can not comment. For from 10.4 on I abandoned all MS gear, and I still refuse to work with it. Thats not because XP was bad. It was quite strong. But where MS failed was in the shell - the user experience ( I ran custom shells on XP). And where Apple excelled was in this area. The stability of UNIX with a good user interface (not perfect, no RDF here) made digital work good.
I wonder what the future will bring. I hope for some real evolution in computing. iOS has given us some of that. I just hope that our 'trucks' don't get treated like real trucks, with little change over the years because they do their utilitarian tasks just fine.
It is so true how OS X was a major turning point for Apple. One of the things that I always thought set Apple apart was their willingness to drastically alter course when needed. I remember the System 7, 8, 9 days well. I liked working on Macs, but at the time Windows NT was a more robust beast. When a suitcase can crash your machine, you know something is wrong. So along came OS X, and it surpassed MS for many years. For MS today, I can not comment. For from 10.4 on I abandoned all MS gear, and I still refuse to work with it. Thats not because XP was bad. It was quite strong. But where MS failed was in the shell - the user experience ( I ran custom shells on XP). And where Apple excelled was in this area. The stability of UNIX with a good user interface (not perfect, no RDF here) made digital work good.
I wonder what the future will bring. I hope for some real evolution in computing. iOS has given us some of that. I just hope that our 'trucks' don't get treated like real trucks, with little change over the years because they do their utilitarian tasks just fine.
more...
DewGuy1999
Apr 13, 09:50 PM
Lockware Systems (http://www.lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
So, on the left side of the above linked page it says they're $120 and on the right side of the same page it says they're $140! So, which is it?
So, on the left side of the above linked page it says they're $120 and on the right side of the same page it says they're $140! So, which is it?
wrxguy
Sep 8, 09:20 AM
kanye west can kiss my ass.....hes a whinny little bitch....
more...
currentinterest
Apr 15, 04:58 PM
Yep, I remember all those fake, poorly photoshopped iPod Nanos and Mac Minis as well. These may very well be real, or could be an early version.
MacRumors
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/15/questionable-next-generation-iphone-rear-shell-images-surface/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_1_500.jpg
more...
wallpapers hd 1080p download.
wallpapers hd 1080p download.
more...
wallpaper hd 1080p download.
Download wallpaper
more...
wallpaper hd 1080p download.
wallpaper hd 1080p download.
more...
wallpaper hd 1080p download.
wallpaper hd 1080p download.
more...
Wallpapers Full HD 1080p »
wallpaper hd 1080p download.
wallpaper hd 1080p download.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_1_500.jpg
more...
tvachon
Jan 8, 04:58 PM
Could it be possible to get an RSS just for this page? So we can instantly know when it is up?
andrewbecks
May 2, 08:55 PM
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
more...
squirrellydw
Apr 16, 02:58 PM
1. Was the iPhone the first smart phone = No
2. Is the iPhone best smart phone = yes and no, depends on what you like and your needs.
3. Did it change the cell phone industry = Yes, are the experts agree. Apple simply did what they always have done. They improve on a product that has already been established in most cases.
The Apple ecosystem is no more open or closed then any other system, Apple, Android, Rim, Windows etc.
If I want to do certain things with an iPhone I have to jailbreak it, same with Android it's just called rooting.
end of story, move on
2. Is the iPhone best smart phone = yes and no, depends on what you like and your needs.
3. Did it change the cell phone industry = Yes, are the experts agree. Apple simply did what they always have done. They improve on a product that has already been established in most cases.
The Apple ecosystem is no more open or closed then any other system, Apple, Android, Rim, Windows etc.
If I want to do certain things with an iPhone I have to jailbreak it, same with Android it's just called rooting.
end of story, move on
KeriJane
Apr 9, 01:28 PM
Some of it is copying, but it's good for consumers. The program packaging is because Microsoft is planning to release an App Store for Windows.
I'm just glad Microsoft is focusing on consumer features in their operating system instead of just enterprise features.
That's what Microsoft does. Copy Apple and make the copy so bad that Apple can't quite sue them. MS has been doing that for DECADES.
That's why I call MS "The Worlds Biggest Out-Of-Focus Copying Machine".
It's not good for consumers in the long run. We get stuck with expensive and inferior copies of Apple products. Yuck.
A Microsoft App Store is almost too hilarious a concept to think about. Thinking about it might make good therapy for depression but could have side effects related to excessive laughter.
If they're very lucky it will be Zune2.
MS has been focusing on Enterprise features? Odd. Our MS based computers at work are actually worse to use than Windows computers at home. Perhaps our IT guys are just being cruel?
Have Fun.
Keri
I'm just glad Microsoft is focusing on consumer features in their operating system instead of just enterprise features.
That's what Microsoft does. Copy Apple and make the copy so bad that Apple can't quite sue them. MS has been doing that for DECADES.
That's why I call MS "The Worlds Biggest Out-Of-Focus Copying Machine".
It's not good for consumers in the long run. We get stuck with expensive and inferior copies of Apple products. Yuck.
A Microsoft App Store is almost too hilarious a concept to think about. Thinking about it might make good therapy for depression but could have side effects related to excessive laughter.
If they're very lucky it will be Zune2.
MS has been focusing on Enterprise features? Odd. Our MS based computers at work are actually worse to use than Windows computers at home. Perhaps our IT guys are just being cruel?
Have Fun.
Keri
more...
jhartung
Jan 16, 12:02 PM
MacBook Air: Though it's pretty, the lack of a 12" screen, the RIDICULOUS fixed battery, and the sloggy speed were real disappointments. I've my PowerBook for 4 years now, and it looks like I'm not going to replace it anytime soon. I've talked to more people who want just a small, cheap little notebook.
ITunes rentals is OK, I guess--they just need to beef up the offerings.
ITunes rentals is OK, I guess--they just need to beef up the offerings.
840quadra
Nov 25, 05:52 PM
some kid in front of me in line brought in his old ipod for the ipod exchange program and got an additional discount on today's price. the 30gb ipod he got ended up being a little over $200. :rolleyes:
Really ? That's quite sad that he only got ~$28 for his old ipod! Broken iPods go for way more than that on ebay!
Really ? That's quite sad that he only got ~$28 for his old ipod! Broken iPods go for way more than that on ebay!
more...
Bonte
Oct 29, 10:26 AM
Remember the years of the clones? Apple is a whole widget company. They will not suceede by emulating M$ and selling software to other peoples hardware. Ever.
Steve wasn't on board with the first clones and Apple wasn't on Intel yet, in my eyes there have been clear signs (now and in the past) that Apple and Steve are still open for the idea of licensing osX to other vendors if necessary. There big time investors also won't take 'just because' as an answer to why Apple won't license there OS, if the growth stops than there is no alternative.
Don't forget hell did froze over several times lately.
Steve wasn't on board with the first clones and Apple wasn't on Intel yet, in my eyes there have been clear signs (now and in the past) that Apple and Steve are still open for the idea of licensing osX to other vendors if necessary. There big time investors also won't take 'just because' as an answer to why Apple won't license there OS, if the growth stops than there is no alternative.
Don't forget hell did froze over several times lately.
CaoCao
Apr 17, 02:25 PM
I doubt Lee missed your point; maybe your point is just undefendable. For example, explain how you can prove that adding a bit of content about modern history will somehow force something else out of the curriculum. That there are a finite amount of class hours isn't good enough.
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
more...
MrSEC
Apr 15, 10:10 PM
Google, Microsoft and Bush are Devils!
So original.....
So original.....
Illusion986
Apr 15, 03:14 PM
Real or Not....I like it
Lord Blackadder
Aug 8, 02:40 PM
You forgot something. You are comparing diesel to unleaded even in hybrid form. You need to compare the generators (unlead to unlead). Now image if those very high gas mileage diesel running as a hybrid.
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
lewis82
Apr 12, 08:22 PM
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/571/dtbinfinity.jpg
Great album from Devin Townsend :)
Great album from Devin Townsend :)
MikhailT
Apr 6, 11:59 PM
I believe Windows 8 will actually be Windows 6.2.
Hmm, 6.1 = 6 + 1 = 7, 6.2 = 8.
Hmm, 6.1 = 6 + 1 = 7, 6.2 = 8.
raymondkerr
Apr 9, 11:52 AM
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll4/raymondkerr/Apple%20Setup/IMG_1236.jpg
applekid
Apr 3, 09:06 PM
My question now turns to this: how do I get Microsoft to give up this information?? The cops are not able to get any info, Microsoft is giving me a run-around. I'm open to any ideas, if anyone knows a phone number for someone higher up the food chain at Microsoft, that would be great. I'm just really pissed off that someone is still using my 360 and Microsoft won't do anything to help.
For any realistic chance of getting Microsoft to help you, you need to carry out a lawsuit.
So pawn shop people have been renting this home? Kind of odd.
For any realistic chance of getting Microsoft to help you, you need to carry out a lawsuit.
So pawn shop people have been renting this home? Kind of odd.
thequicksilver
Jan 5, 03:23 PM
Perfect, wonderful, magnificent: many many thanks indeed. :)
<runs off to delete all his Mac-related RSS feeds until Wednesday>
<runs off to delete all his Mac-related RSS feeds until Wednesday>