Yes, that's true. It's a tradeoff. With a built-in battery, Apple can make a thinner product, with longer battery life, since the battery can be better molded to the product and to fill empty space, and they don't need room for a removal mechanism. They are doing this with their laptops now too. As with any other design decision, there are pro and cons.
True, we did use the brute force method to get there the first time. But, by the time we are ready to really go out there again, will we have enough resources left to do it?
I think this is just a natural evolutionary process for most new technology. When personal computers were new, they were mainly purchased and used by hobbyists. Now they are mainstream and most people just want to use them to get things done, they don't care how or why they work. Cars were the same when they were first introduced. You had to know how to tinker just to keep them working. Now cars are everwhere and they are computerized and automated so much, it's hard to do the kind of tinkering that used to be common.
It's sad to see things change, but there will always be room for those who like to tinker. We still have Linux and *BSD, after all. I love my Mac, but sometimes it's nice to play around with Linux.
Sure, one example is an expansion of rail, especially electrified rail, so we can get a lot of cars and trucks off the road. More passengers and cargo can be transported that way much more efficiently.
We can also use various forms of alternative energy at the local level to provide enough to meet our needs, though without the level of consumption we have today.
I wasn't suggesting this all needs to be on the shoulders of individuals. There's obviously a limit to what we can do personally. That's why I said the changes need to take place at the infrastructure level.
This is not a problem that can be solved at the individual level. It requires changes at the infrastructure level, as well as political and economic level. However, in case it matters, I live in a tiny apartment, don't own a car, and use a laptop that doesn't consume much power.
Well, naval vessels are something different, but I wasn't ruling nuclear out. But if we massively reduce our consumption and energy use, not only will this help the environment and climate change, it could reduce the need for nuclear in the first place. The US still produces a third of the oil it uses, after all, that should be more than enough if we scale back, improve efficiency and put in place a better transportation system such as rail.
Why is big oil being subsidized, when it's already massively profitable? And if nuclear is supposed to provide a cheaper source of electricity, why does it *need* subsidies? Every nuclear project seems to take twice as long as planned and cost an order of magnitude more than orginally estimated.
If we really want to reduce energy use and carbon emissions, why not focus on conservation? It's much cheaper than nuclear, and can even save the government money. With conservation, you also don't have to worry about accidents or nuclear waste.
As much as I would like to see us go back to the moon and to Mars, I think humanity may have missed its window. The future of space exploration seems quite bleak at this point, at least for the next couple hundred years.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's true. It's a tradeoff. With a built-in battery, Apple can make a thinner product, with longer battery life, since the battery can be better molded to the product and to fill empty space, and they don't need room for a removal mechanism. They are doing this with their laptops now too. As with any other design decision, there are pro and cons.
True, we did use the brute force method to get there the first time. But, by the time we are ready to really go out there again, will we have enough resources left to do it?
I think this is just a natural evolutionary process for most new technology. When personal computers were new, they were mainly purchased and used by hobbyists. Now they are mainstream and most people just want to use them to get things done, they don't care how or why they work. Cars were the same when they were first introduced. You had to know how to tinker just to keep them working. Now cars are everwhere and they are computerized and automated so much, it's hard to do the kind of tinkering that used to be common.
It's sad to see things change, but there will always be room for those who like to tinker. We still have Linux and *BSD, after all. I love my Mac, but sometimes it's nice to play around with Linux.
Sure, one example is an expansion of rail, especially electrified rail, so we can get a lot of cars and trucks off the road. More passengers and cargo can be transported that way much more efficiently.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/case-for-rail.html
We can also use various forms of alternative energy at the local level to provide enough to meet our needs, though without the level of consumption we have today.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/01/alternative-energy.html
Instead of just focusing on recycling, we need to focus more on reduction and reuse, there is the possibility for massive savings there:
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/09/recycling-is-self-destructive.html
And here's some other low hanging fruit we seem to be ignoring:
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/low-hanging-fruit.html
I wasn't suggesting this all needs to be on the shoulders of individuals. There's obviously a limit to what we can do personally. That's why I said the changes need to take place at the infrastructure level.
This is not a problem that can be solved at the individual level. It requires changes at the infrastructure level, as well as political and economic level. However, in case it matters, I live in a tiny apartment, don't own a car, and use a laptop that doesn't consume much power.
Well, naval vessels are something different, but I wasn't ruling nuclear out. But if we massively reduce our consumption and energy use, not only will this help the environment and climate change, it could reduce the need for nuclear in the first place. The US still produces a third of the oil it uses, after all, that should be more than enough if we scale back, improve efficiency and put in place a better transportation system such as rail.
Why is big oil being subsidized, when it's already massively profitable? And if nuclear is supposed to provide a cheaper source of electricity, why does it *need* subsidies? Every nuclear project seems to take twice as long as planned and cost an order of magnitude more than orginally estimated.
If we really want to reduce energy use and carbon emissions, why not focus on conservation? It's much cheaper than nuclear, and can even save the government money. With conservation, you also don't have to worry about accidents or nuclear waste.
As much as I would like to see us go back to the moon and to Mars, I think humanity may have missed its window. The future of space exploration seems quite bleak at this point, at least for the next couple hundred years.
http://www.watchinghistory.com/2009/11/future-of-space-exploration.html