In other places Apple/*insert whatever company you want here* sells crap with short warranties (some as short as 90 days) and the consumer gets screwed over.
The Apple i-device users are famous for buying another every year, so who benefits by a two year guarantee for a one year product, its like demanding a 10 year guarantee for a gallon of milk from the grocery store...
Some people change cars every four years. That means we don't need to make cars that last any longer.
See how half-assed that logic is?
Even if you do buy a new iDevice every year, why should the old one stop working?
The retailer is responsible for taking care of the repair/replacement. That means Joe consumer deals with the retailer, which in turn deals with Apple.
There are comapnies that take care of warranties directly, however, they're the minority. I can think of Corsair and Microsoft (Xbox 360 only).
Researchers have recognized for years that autism is heavily a question of chemical pollution in the environment, just like cancer. However, it's pretty clear that there is also a genetic component to vulnerability, otherwise we'd all have it. The problem still needs to be understood in full if we want to do anything about it.
1 kW per household seems very low. My desktop's PSU alone can draw 0,85 kW on its own. A good hair dryer consumes more than that.
Except that you do not run your hairdryer all day, and probably not even at the same time as everyone else. What are you using your PC for, that it uses 850W on a continuous basis, BTW? Any chance that you are confusing a momentary pulse for its normal usage, or have mis-measured something?
I don't run it all day, but do run it at the same time as multiple computers, various appliances (fridge, lights, TV, etc...) and sometimes the oven. At the same time, my neighbors are probably doing more or less the same thing. Definitely more than 1kW per home.
As for my computer, it's not actually drawing 850W all the time - it's just a very rough estimate of how much power it can draw under heavy load. Most of the time it's in standby or doing light tasks. Distributed computing does tend to keep computers pretty loaded, though, which means constant high power consumption.
Speed is not what matters (for that matter, individual electrons do not move anywhere near c, but that's beside the point), it's bandwidth. The backbones for electrical distribution may be better, but charging the individual car is still a pain.
Hydrogen doesn't have much infrastructure, but you sure could fill a tank of hydrogen much faster than you can charge (maybe even swap) batteries.
a) Oil is not widely used for electricity generation, but it is used. Besides, does it really make that much of a difference where we use oil? The only applications I can remember right now that really rely on oil or some sort of analogue is aviation and shipping, with limited mid-term possibilities for new propulsion systems. Just eliminating road traffic and backup generators (replacing combustion engines with fuel cells or batteries, depending on application) would be a very large reduction in oil consumption. Besides the environmental benefits, there would also be socio-political benefits.
b) I do know coal is fossil. I meant it as: "Especially not coal" I wasn't very clear, I'll give you that.
c) Moderating is not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about recognizing valid points and useful discussions.
I suggest you use the HTML paragraph tags to format your text and improve readability. It can be a pain, but it's worth it.
Natural gas shares the main issues of oil and coal: pollution and limited (very large but still limited) supply.
Nuclear power can be made much safer than any fossil, hydroelectric, wind and even some solar power plants. It's a matter of cost. If you keep the bean counters away and just safeguard against anything you can think of (using reason, of course), you'll end up with something that's safer.
I'm sure someone can quote deaths related to coal/gas/oil extraction or even related to hydroelectric power, compared to nuclear power.
Solar and Wind will never meet our energy demands unless we start using a lot less power than we do now. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, it just means we need other stuff.
Medium-scale hydroelectric might not be very good, but small-scale implementations that take the environment into account and keep the impact to a minimum can help.
And yes, I do think fossil fuels are one of the worst things we've done, and that we should reduce their use as much as possible.
Until everyone realizes that the only short/medium term solution is nuclear, we'll need everything we can get that isn't fossil. Especially coal, but natural gas isn't much better.
Oil won't get much cheaper anytime soon, and will probably get more expensvie. If that happens, this kind of project will be much more appealing.
For the average consumer, the PS2's disc problems are as evident as the RROD (with the disadvantage of Sony's typical attitude towards warranty and repair):
Most PS2 owners were/had kids. Controllers were physically attached to the console with short cables. An extra strong tug and you have a PS2 suffering from deceleration trauma with the disc spinning. Every original PS2 I've seen has had problems with the DVD drive, no exceptions. Most 360's I've seen have had the RROD. If anything, the PS2 was just as bad as the 360.
Mine was broken for two weeks, with 3-4 days before actually shipping it. And it was an international shipment.
Getting a free month of Live Gold is also not too bad, especially since I never paid for Gold.
If they dump their cheap stuff on us at a loss, they'll drive their competitors out of business. When that happens, they have a monopoly.
Too bad nobody decided to tax everything made in China. There's plenty of reasons for doing so, and since they don't play fair, why should we?
Slashdot Mirror
In other places Apple/*insert whatever company you want here* sells crap with short warranties (some as short as 90 days) and the consumer gets screwed over.
Apple isn't being forced to give away AppleCare, they're being forced to respect the standard warranty imposed by the EU.
In other words, they're being forced to repair the devices for free if they were bought in the last two years.
The Apple i-device users are famous for buying another every year, so who benefits by a two year guarantee for a one year product, its like demanding a 10 year guarantee for a gallon of milk from the grocery store...
Some people change cars every four years. That means we don't need to make cars that last any longer.
See how half-assed that logic is?
Even if you do buy a new iDevice every year, why should the old one stop working?
Too bad the US allows companies to force you into no-sue contracts (like Sony and EA have done).
I wouldn't call it amusing, but it's pretty much normal here in Europe.
Why should a company be allowed to sell something with a 90-day warranty? That's simply absurd.
The retailer is responsible for taking care of the repair/replacement. That means Joe consumer deals with the retailer, which in turn deals with Apple.
There are comapnies that take care of warranties directly, however, they're the minority. I can think of Corsair and Microsoft (Xbox 360 only).
It's understandable that you're reluctant to risk it, but if you haven't used it, you can't judge it.
Researchers have recognized for years that autism is heavily a question of chemical pollution in the environment, just like cancer. However, it's pretty clear that there is also a genetic component to vulnerability, otherwise we'd all have it. The problem still needs to be understood in full if we want to do anything about it.
[Citation needed]
MeeGo just wasn't compelling to end users
Have you even tried Meego? I can assure you, if it had been properly supported and widely released, it would have been pretty appealing to end users.
Just in case someone doesn't pick up on the irony: http://xkcd.com/radiation/
1 kW per household seems very low. My desktop's PSU alone can draw 0,85 kW on its own. A good hair dryer consumes more than that.
Except that you do not run your hairdryer all day, and probably not even at the same time as everyone else. What are you using your PC for, that it uses 850W on a continuous basis, BTW? Any chance that you are confusing a momentary pulse for its normal usage, or have mis-measured something?
I don't run it all day, but do run it at the same time as multiple computers, various appliances (fridge, lights, TV, etc...) and sometimes the oven. At the same time, my neighbors are probably doing more or less the same thing. Definitely more than 1kW per home.
As for my computer, it's not actually drawing 850W all the time - it's just a very rough estimate of how much power it can draw under heavy load. Most of the time it's in standby or doing light tasks. Distributed computing does tend to keep computers pretty loaded, though, which means constant high power consumption.
Yeah, but they're pretty desperate without their nuclear plants. I'd say it's hardly the norm.
I'm all for efficiency. I never said we should generate more power, only that we should generate more power from non-fossil sources.
Gas is better than oil, but doesn't solve the underlying problems: emissions and limited (very large, but limited) supply.
I'm pretty sure a natural gas power plant can do more environmental harm than a well-planned hydroelectric installation.
1 kW per household seems very low. My desktop's PSU alone can draw 0,85 kW on its own. A good hair dryer consumes more than that.
Speed is not what matters (for that matter, individual electrons do not move anywhere near c, but that's beside the point), it's bandwidth. The backbones for electrical distribution may be better, but charging the individual car is still a pain.
Hydrogen doesn't have much infrastructure, but you sure could fill a tank of hydrogen much faster than you can charge (maybe even swap) batteries.
a) Oil is not widely used for electricity generation, but it is used.
Besides, does it really make that much of a difference where we use oil? The only applications I can remember right now that really rely on oil or some sort of analogue is aviation and shipping, with limited mid-term possibilities for new propulsion systems.
Just eliminating road traffic and backup generators (replacing combustion engines with fuel cells or batteries, depending on application) would be a very large reduction in oil consumption. Besides the environmental benefits, there would also be socio-political benefits.
b) I do know coal is fossil. I meant it as: "Especially not coal" I wasn't very clear, I'll give you that.
c) Moderating is not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about recognizing valid points and useful discussions.
I suggest you use the HTML paragraph tags to format your text and improve readability. It can be a pain, but it's worth it.
Natural gas shares the main issues of oil and coal: pollution and limited (very large but still limited) supply.
Nuclear power can be made much safer than any fossil, hydroelectric, wind and even some solar power plants. It's a matter of cost. If you keep the bean counters away and just safeguard against anything you can think of (using reason, of course), you'll end up with something that's safer.
I'm sure someone can quote deaths related to coal/gas/oil extraction or even related to hydroelectric power, compared to nuclear power.
Solar and Wind will never meet our energy demands unless we start using a lot less power than we do now. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, it just means we need other stuff.
Medium-scale hydroelectric might not be very good, but small-scale implementations that take the environment into account and keep the impact to a minimum can help.
And yes, I do think fossil fuels are one of the worst things we've done, and that we should reduce their use as much as possible.
Until everyone realizes that the only short/medium term solution is nuclear, we'll need everything we can get that isn't fossil. Especially coal, but natural gas isn't much better.
Oil won't get much cheaper anytime soon, and will probably get more expensvie. If that happens, this kind of project will be much more appealing.
You could also argue that the PS2's short controller cables are a design flaw that leads to damage to the console itself.
Wait a second, did you say you've been buying 360 games even though you don't have a 360?
For the average consumer, the PS2's disc problems are as evident as the RROD (with the disadvantage of Sony's typical attitude towards warranty and repair): Most PS2 owners were/had kids. Controllers were physically attached to the console with short cables. An extra strong tug and you have a PS2 suffering from deceleration trauma with the disc spinning. Every original PS2 I've seen has had problems with the DVD drive, no exceptions. Most 360's I've seen have had the RROD. If anything, the PS2 was just as bad as the 360.
Mine was broken for two weeks, with 3-4 days before actually shipping it. And it was an international shipment. Getting a free month of Live Gold is also not too bad, especially since I never paid for Gold.
If they dump their cheap stuff on us at a loss, they'll drive their competitors out of business. When that happens, they have a monopoly. Too bad nobody decided to tax everything made in China. There's plenty of reasons for doing so, and since they don't play fair, why should we?