ilfn143
May 3, 02:23 PM
take out the sim, go to market on wifi. all carrier restrictions is gone. :p
ThunderLounge
Jan 14, 06:33 PM
I'm surprised nobody picked up on their title.
"Confessions: The meanest Thing Giz..."
Meanest? It may just be a poor choice of words, but in light of the situation it makes you wonder "what else" they did and aren't admitting to.
"Confessions: The meanest Thing Giz..."
Meanest? It may just be a poor choice of words, but in light of the situation it makes you wonder "what else" they did and aren't admitting to.
VenusianSky
Oct 6, 03:47 PM
Former Verizon, unhappy AT&T customers...
It is impossible to argue that Verizon would be better if it had the iPhone. We will never know the answer to such a question unless exclusivity goes over to Verizon. If Verizon would have got the iPhone deal instead of AT&T, thousands and thousands (whatever the number may be) of cusomters would have left AT&T, Sprint, etc. to join up with Vierzon just to get an iPhone. The networks may or may not have become over-saturated with the additional cusomters. We will never know. So if you are really that unhappy with AT&T's service, go back to Verizon. I'm sure they would welcome you back with open arms. I personally couldn't imagine paying for such terrible service if I were in that situation. AT&T's service just happens to be great in my area.
It is impossible to argue that Verizon would be better if it had the iPhone. We will never know the answer to such a question unless exclusivity goes over to Verizon. If Verizon would have got the iPhone deal instead of AT&T, thousands and thousands (whatever the number may be) of cusomters would have left AT&T, Sprint, etc. to join up with Vierzon just to get an iPhone. The networks may or may not have become over-saturated with the additional cusomters. We will never know. So if you are really that unhappy with AT&T's service, go back to Verizon. I'm sure they would welcome you back with open arms. I personally couldn't imagine paying for such terrible service if I were in that situation. AT&T's service just happens to be great in my area.
.jpg "sweet love poems for your")
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 01:46 AM
I just told a story and everybody is entitled to their personal opinion, what's done is done, I wasn't look for any congrats for this posting, but I Thank you all for the laughs
You didn't "just tell a story," you crowed about ripping someone off.
You didn't "just tell a story," you crowed about ripping someone off.
more...
ciTiger
Apr 15, 06:13 PM
I love Apple but these are bad news.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
white pilgrim
Nov 24, 11:07 AM
Let the sale go global! :p
I thought the Airport Express looks more excusable to own now. :D
I thought the Airport Express looks more excusable to own now. :D
more...
MasterHowl
Mar 24, 03:09 PM
Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear Mac OS X, happy birthday to you :apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:
RubbishBBspeed
Apr 8, 07:23 PM
Best Buy does this all the time. I purchased a Samsung TV off their Web site for in-store sameday pickup last year, and took my receipt to my local store. They wouldn't give me the TV I already purchased because they were holding all of that model until Sunday because of their Sunday ad flyer. They had at least 10 of that model in stock on their store shelves.
They told me I could come back Sunday to pick it up. Naturally, I refused (this was like Tuesday), called Best Buy Online and had them refund my purchase. Then, purchased from Amazon.
I'll never purchase anything major from them again.
I did the same with pc world in england, I haven't bought anything from there stores in the last 15 years and would reckon I've taken between family and friends probably �40,000 out of there takings by buying and advising people to purchase else where. Sometimes it may seem trivial to take a stand against these stores but the amounts do add up as time goes buy.
Which reminds me, I must write to the CEO this weekend and send photos and a list of all the stuff not bought through them. Just as they post there financial results, which aren't looking that good this year.
They told me I could come back Sunday to pick it up. Naturally, I refused (this was like Tuesday), called Best Buy Online and had them refund my purchase. Then, purchased from Amazon.
I'll never purchase anything major from them again.
I did the same with pc world in england, I haven't bought anything from there stores in the last 15 years and would reckon I've taken between family and friends probably �40,000 out of there takings by buying and advising people to purchase else where. Sometimes it may seem trivial to take a stand against these stores but the amounts do add up as time goes buy.
Which reminds me, I must write to the CEO this weekend and send photos and a list of all the stuff not bought through them. Just as they post there financial results, which aren't looking that good this year.
more...
Chundles
Sep 12, 04:17 AM
At about 2am try downloading itunes manually from the itunes page. It will still say 6.x but it may very well be 7. That should keep you occupied for a bit :D Twice i have noticed they upload the new version but keep the previous version number on the page until its announced. I had a play with 5 and 6 about half an hour before they were officially released. :D
Noted.
Also, the Aussie Apple website doesn't slow down nearly as much as the US/UK ones when the products come back on. It's very handy.
Noted.
Also, the Aussie Apple website doesn't slow down nearly as much as the US/UK ones when the products come back on. It's very handy.
macFanDave
Aug 1, 11:55 AM
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are just about the happiest countries in the world. Taking the iTMS away from them ought to knock them down a few pegs!
more...
TeppefallGuy
Aug 2, 09:00 AM
Why all this hostility against Scandinavia ? In Norway we pay 25 percent VAT on music and iPods and expect them to work well with other products.
The Powerbook I am typing this on had a faulty harddrive and crashed after 16 months of use. Apple Norway fixed it for free. Did I have AppleCare ? No, Norwegian law dictates that a consumer electronic product should have no technical problems in the first two years with a maximum of five.
A maxed out 17" MacBook Pro will set you back US $4,304 in Norway. Now you understand why we are kinda picky ?
A nice flat in Oslo/Trondheim costs about the same as in the better parts of San Francisco (Pine Street/Pacific Heights). It is not New York prices.. but we are getting there :(
The Powerbook I am typing this on had a faulty harddrive and crashed after 16 months of use. Apple Norway fixed it for free. Did I have AppleCare ? No, Norwegian law dictates that a consumer electronic product should have no technical problems in the first two years with a maximum of five.
A maxed out 17" MacBook Pro will set you back US $4,304 in Norway. Now you understand why we are kinda picky ?
A nice flat in Oslo/Trondheim costs about the same as in the better parts of San Francisco (Pine Street/Pacific Heights). It is not New York prices.. but we are getting there :(
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 10:58 AM
I think the true video iPod is pretty much guaranteed to be released today.
I LOVE your avatar! Nothing is truer or says it better!
I LOVE your avatar! Nothing is truer or says it better!
more...
_How_can_love_be_so_sweet.jpg "sweet love poems for your")
toddybody
May 2, 12:44 PM
Because a huge amount of the reported details on this matter are wrong.
While the method of storing the cell location cache may show poor judgment on Apples part, I don't see any malicious intent. The system is logical implemented and on the surface, cell location data does not appear sensitive enough to justify encryption. It is only after further analysis that potentially sensitive data can be inferred.
Regardless it's good to see it being addressed.
I am glad they are addressing it as well; however...Apple's response to this issue has been somewhat confusing (and begs the question as to why they needed that much data and why it was not encrypted properly). Ill be first to say that it most likely is and was just a dumb move on Apple's behalf...
My greater point was, that folks seem predisposed to trust Apple's decisions on EVERYTHING. I mean, just look at threads on apple's decision not to include specific HW in their systems...no BluRay, no res bump on recent 13 MBP refresh (even though the previous Air has a standard 1400x900 res), poor GPU selection in iMac, Antenna Gate, Apple's disproportioned profit margins...All this is perpetuated and supported by "Apple Fans". The reasons are "Blu Ray is a dying format, and Apple is actually doing us a favor by not including it" (WTF?)... "The 1280x800 screen on my 13MPB is fine, people need to stop whining for things they dont need"..."Wow! they gave the iMac a 5750! Finally some powerful graphics!"..."Youre holding it wrong"..."Mac's cost more cause theyre just so well built". Its like some Apple fans will think of anyway to spin an Apple decision as "they know whats best for us".
Were taking a beating with a smile, then remarking on how wonderful and magical it was.
While the method of storing the cell location cache may show poor judgment on Apples part, I don't see any malicious intent. The system is logical implemented and on the surface, cell location data does not appear sensitive enough to justify encryption. It is only after further analysis that potentially sensitive data can be inferred.
Regardless it's good to see it being addressed.
I am glad they are addressing it as well; however...Apple's response to this issue has been somewhat confusing (and begs the question as to why they needed that much data and why it was not encrypted properly). Ill be first to say that it most likely is and was just a dumb move on Apple's behalf...
My greater point was, that folks seem predisposed to trust Apple's decisions on EVERYTHING. I mean, just look at threads on apple's decision not to include specific HW in their systems...no BluRay, no res bump on recent 13 MBP refresh (even though the previous Air has a standard 1400x900 res), poor GPU selection in iMac, Antenna Gate, Apple's disproportioned profit margins...All this is perpetuated and supported by "Apple Fans". The reasons are "Blu Ray is a dying format, and Apple is actually doing us a favor by not including it" (WTF?)... "The 1280x800 screen on my 13MPB is fine, people need to stop whining for things they dont need"..."Wow! they gave the iMac a 5750! Finally some powerful graphics!"..."Youre holding it wrong"..."Mac's cost more cause theyre just so well built". Its like some Apple fans will think of anyway to spin an Apple decision as "they know whats best for us".
Were taking a beating with a smile, then remarking on how wonderful and magical it was.
Consultant
Dec 23, 01:59 AM
4G is a lie. (Even CNN confirmed it).
About iPhone to verizon, maybe, maybe not.
Quote of the day. Fanned!!
Oh, sorry we can't fan here. .....
You can friend someone but it takes a few steps.
About iPhone to verizon, maybe, maybe not.
Quote of the day. Fanned!!
Oh, sorry we can't fan here. .....
You can friend someone but it takes a few steps.
more...
GGJstudios
Apr 21, 12:08 PM
So it's a like/dislike system that nets the like/dislikes to a numerical value, assuming the dislikes are negative. That is why when you change from a vote down to an up, you are removing your dislike and adding a like. Correct?
Exactly.
Exactly.
Blakjack
May 4, 07:46 AM
I'll buy one when it gets a capacitive pressure based screen/stylus (Like the HTC Flyer)
Do you own a Horse instead of a car and do still own an out house?
Do you own a Horse instead of a car and do still own an out house?
more...
*LTD*
Apr 23, 04:09 PM
LTD answer the question that was ask multiple times of you. Your refusal to answer is tell me that you are nothing than someone who will defend apple at all cost and can not think for your self. So please provide reasoning.
We have provided multiple bad reasons and you have failed to deliver us some good reasonings. Come on we ask you last night and you still have not provided one good reason must less several.
My answer is that I don't know what purpose it serves, and neither do you. This does not mean it's dangerous.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell phone towers you were near, unless you've done something you shouldn't have or been somewhere you shouldn't have.
Is it any reason to get all worked up over?
Absolutely not. That's my position.
As for paedophiles using it (LOL you keep coming back to pedos for some reason), judging by the very good informational post by menlotechnical, it's almost impossible for any one individual to access this remotely, nor is there much they could do with it that they can't already do. This isn't key-logging.
Do you know any paedophiles that have worked this into their master plans? :D How are they accessing it? What's the scenario?
The fact that there is no good reason for something to exist (and the jury's still out on the actual reason for this - it might be an understandable one), does not immediately mean it's dangerous and that something horrible is going on.
In fact, it would appear this is normal behaviour for not only the iPhone, but other phones as well.
There is a galaxy of difference (ah, Samsung pun!) between looking in to the nature of this specific sort of tracking, and slagging on Apple for an egregious violation of your privacy (when for all practical purposes none has actually occurred.)
We have provided multiple bad reasons and you have failed to deliver us some good reasonings. Come on we ask you last night and you still have not provided one good reason must less several.
My answer is that I don't know what purpose it serves, and neither do you. This does not mean it's dangerous.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell phone towers you were near, unless you've done something you shouldn't have or been somewhere you shouldn't have.
Is it any reason to get all worked up over?
Absolutely not. That's my position.
As for paedophiles using it (LOL you keep coming back to pedos for some reason), judging by the very good informational post by menlotechnical, it's almost impossible for any one individual to access this remotely, nor is there much they could do with it that they can't already do. This isn't key-logging.
Do you know any paedophiles that have worked this into their master plans? :D How are they accessing it? What's the scenario?
The fact that there is no good reason for something to exist (and the jury's still out on the actual reason for this - it might be an understandable one), does not immediately mean it's dangerous and that something horrible is going on.
In fact, it would appear this is normal behaviour for not only the iPhone, but other phones as well.
There is a galaxy of difference (ah, Samsung pun!) between looking in to the nature of this specific sort of tracking, and slagging on Apple for an egregious violation of your privacy (when for all practical purposes none has actually occurred.)
AVMasterpiece
Jan 15, 01:36 PM
I too am slighty disappointed, but not stunned. I really wanted a MBP with penryn released today, but it will come soon enough. The iPhone upgrade is free, and at least that will tide me over for awhile. I need to replace my 15" Powerbook G4, and a MacBook Air will certainly not cut it, as it is in a different class of laptop. Steve Jobs, please, please don't wait too long to release a new iteration of a MacBook Pro, sans Randy Newman if you could.
transcend
Sep 26, 11:42 AM
What's hilarious is that you guys are arguing about beta software and a product that, up until this point, has been a huge disaster. Asking someone to rotate a raw image 180 degrees with a straightening tool is absurd. It isn't meant to do that. End of story.
I am not sure how many of you are professional photographers, but I can tell you that most of us have tried both products and are still using what works best: Iview media pro and C1 Pro (as well as photo mechanic for iptc info in batches). All 3 products have been around forever, and work flawlessly. What's comical, is that running all 3 of those apps concurently, is faster than running only aperture on my powerbook G4, as well as on my Mac Pro.
Aperture is a pig even on a shiny new mac pro compared to C1 and Iview. Lightroom just doesn't feel complete, and to be frank, the way the program is laid out is annoying as hell when you need to get things done quickly (like when filing from a football game, on deadline while sorting through 1000+ shots). It takes all day just to even get them imported into aperture, while I view does it in about 2 minutes. In 2 minutes, I can be choosing selects and sepertating the wheat from the chaff. This is not the case with either aperture or lightroom.
I am not sure how many of you are professional photographers, but I can tell you that most of us have tried both products and are still using what works best: Iview media pro and C1 Pro (as well as photo mechanic for iptc info in batches). All 3 products have been around forever, and work flawlessly. What's comical, is that running all 3 of those apps concurently, is faster than running only aperture on my powerbook G4, as well as on my Mac Pro.
Aperture is a pig even on a shiny new mac pro compared to C1 and Iview. Lightroom just doesn't feel complete, and to be frank, the way the program is laid out is annoying as hell when you need to get things done quickly (like when filing from a football game, on deadline while sorting through 1000+ shots). It takes all day just to even get them imported into aperture, while I view does it in about 2 minutes. In 2 minutes, I can be choosing selects and sepertating the wheat from the chaff. This is not the case with either aperture or lightroom.
netdog
Sep 12, 07:31 AM
Can't wait :D
The Australian store is claiming that the store is busy or to check my connection :confused:
Same in the UK.
The Australian store is claiming that the store is busy or to check my connection :confused:
Same in the UK.
kresh
Oct 31, 02:52 PM
What on Earth are you talking about? What are people stealing in the Arn's summary? The modified code isn't capable of running OS X, and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway.
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
Because they fixed it with the intent to use it with Aqua. They will be stealing Aqua. I sincerely doubt anyone will go through the trouble just for command line only.
Even the blogger that was mentioned has a screen shot of Aqua running. There's the theft for ya :)
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
Because they fixed it with the intent to use it with Aqua. They will be stealing Aqua. I sincerely doubt anyone will go through the trouble just for command line only.
Even the blogger that was mentioned has a screen shot of Aqua running. There's the theft for ya :)
Puppies
Nov 23, 05:24 PM
We'll see if Macbook/Pro discounts are enough to sway me towards one :)
In any event, it gives me an excuse to click on Apple.com tomorrow.
In any event, it gives me an excuse to click on Apple.com tomorrow.
Motionblurrr
Mar 17, 07:28 PM
I get it a lot too but I just say "nah, this phone sucks it's the worst phone in the world" and they usually shut up.
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
No comments:
Post a Comment