You don't feel a little ridiculous saying that Toyota is greener than GM because they can't make an SUV or truck that sells even though they have 9 lines of them and have sunk the vast majority of their development resources into trucks over the last decade?
Couple little things:
The Trailblazer is based on the Canyon platform. The Trailblazer came out earlier because the Canyon got delayed for a long time. Yes they have different engines, but the Trailblazer is a truck-based SUV based on the Canyon platform. The Canyon is simply the latest Chevy smaller pickup (ie same line as S-10).
All of GM's new lines of SUV have been car-based, whereas as Toyota's have all been truck-based since the Highlander was introduced (almost 9 years ago).
The USA is not an urban land. It's predominantly made up of farmland and land that has yet to be developed. It's also a land of long highways and long drives to get to places/transport things. It's a land full of people needing pickup trucks. As such, it's a land where increases in fuel efficiency in pickup trucks have much greater impact on environment than improvements in efficiency of city cars.
Even if this was land equally split between rural and urban such that just as many people bought city cars as pickup trucks, even very small increases in efficiency of pickups would have greater impact on environment than larger increases in efficiency of small cars. Taking the general standard average of roughly 15k miles driven by average American per year, just one mpg increase in mileage on a 15mg vehicle saves about 70 gallons per year. This is the same as going from 30 mpg to 35 mpg in a small car.
The full-size pickup dual mode hybrid version of the Silverado isn't out yet, but the hybrid Tahoe gets 22mpg city whereas the Toyota Sequoia gets 13mpg.
The Avalanche is a 4 door P/U much like a 4-door Tundra, only its bed can convert from a 4-door P/U to one with a full-size bed and no rear seating whereas the Tundra's cannot. Do you really consider it an SUV?
The Escalade ESV is an Escalade, of course, just with an extra row of seating, not a different SUV. Same with the Suburban -- it's a Tahoe with different name and additional row of seats but 99% same parts.
You left out the 15mpg V6 FJ Cruiser out of your list of Toyotas.
Toyota came out with the Prius (developed through Japanese federal funding) in 1997. All but two of the 9 Toyota SUVs listed above were introduced afterwards, nearly every new model being the new largest in line-up.
In contrast, almost every one of the GM SUVs (or models of different name but similar size they replaced) above has existed for 2-5 decades -- they were low-volume work trucks for special purposes such as towing boats and operating in areas with poor roads that somehow got taken up by soccer moms in an arms race for largest minivan substitute on the road, rather than being created for soccer moms.
In contrast, the Japanese Big-3 have put an unprecedented amount of development resources into the creation of new lines of larger and larger SUVs and trucks than anyone in history over the last decade, whereas new lines of GM SUV have been smaller and more car-based than ever before.
The GM full-size hybrid saves more gasoline over a Tundra per year than a Prius does over any other compact car.
Hey it worked for Toyota -- have more models of SUV than any other car manufacturer on planet, but come out with one "green" car and you're a "green" car company, no matter the 8 independent lines of SUV and largest/least full efficient main-line pickups on the market. Likewise -- produce more polution than any other country on the planet, but come out with one "green" city and you're a "green" country, no matter the literal 50% of population having no access to clean drinking water and #1 cause of death in nation being air pollution.
I'm so glad I logged on to Slashdot to learn about a Sony/Toyota clone of an almost 10 year old device that no one cares about anymore. Especially since the device's only function is to transport people around, but the clone only does it at 1/3rd the speed and with 1/4th the range. Awesome technology. Terrific news.
The volt doesn't need to be plugged in. It just can. Without being plugged in, it's still an intrinsically much more efficient "hybrid" than the current ones in that the gas engine in it doesn't have any direct mechanical role in propulsion, but rather just charges the battery, thereby being able to always run at the most optimal conditions for volumetric efficiency.
To reiterate initial point though: The Volt has a charger built into it and does not need to be plugged in to still be fundamentally more efficient than any other vehicle on the road today.
Care to back any of this up with any kind of links or anything? Is this all coming out of your ass or can you show us anything to back up this idea that IBM dumped Apple? Year after year IBM's Gx processors were much much slower than their x86 competitors, so it'd appear you have things backwards.
I'm tired of links to notoriously biased news sources on politics on Slashdot. Aren't there enough political "news" sites and blogs out there already? Do we really need links to these other sites, their liberal or conservative or whatever biases aside? I could understand if this was some intriguing article in Scientific American that people might otherwise not have noticed or something, but it's freakin the NYTimes -- like the freakin biggest "news" web site on the web. Do we really need to be linking to Bush conspiracy, war is awful, etc articles to it like every day? Is that what Slashdot exists for -- a mirror site for giant political "news" sites.
I'm not even a Republican let alone really give a damn about politics. However, if I did, I just go to the NYTimes site myself. I'm just sick of it and it's time I said something. Bring back the old Slashdot. This Bush-hating, NYTimes loving one is just sad.
It's so funny how for over 20 years now every single time a new version of Windows comes out it's a huge disappointment relative to what it had supposedly going to be/have. Then a year after, like clockwork, we start hearing about how the next Windows is going to be so unbelievably awesome it's going to be an almost incomprehensible revolution in computing technology.
See also Sony Playstation for another example of the same "marketing strategy".
IE 5 and IE 5.5 where developed during the period during which it appeared the government was going to atually do something about their monopoly -- during the period when DOJ was building their case and everyone was getting ready for what should have been a huge trial.
Everyone in their right mind (presumably including MS) was expecting something big like a breakup of the company was going to happen. So MS was having to play by the rules there briefly rather than the usually sabotaging anything they didn't already have monopoly control of. Once the trial was over, MS go back to trying to block out competitors by including IE as default browser on every PC sold and making it deliberately incompatible with standards so all sites would have to develop for compatibility with IE, thus being incompatible with anything else.
Quite the opposite. HD-DVDs could be manufactured using mostly the same equipment as DVDs and didn't have the unplanned ridiculously expensive coating added to the design to try and reduce the extreme scratching problem Blu-Ray had. HD-DVDs were always much less expensive to make both in terms of the media and the hardware.
What are you talking about? The battery life of the Macbook Air is amazingly good -- comparable to the current Macbook Pros and drastically better than the last version of Macbook Pro (Core Duo).
Well, don't forget that the DOJ basically said "MS has a monopoly but we aren't going to do anything about it and will just let them continue about their merry anti-competitive way" only a few years ago. It'd practically be a double standard if they were to stop Google from buying Yahoo in a way, wouldn't it?
Did it occur to them, by any chance, that instead of the decades of great music the preceded this one, nowadys "music" is just competely empty crap sung by ex-Micky Mouse club tools like Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake or else "hip hop musicians" whose "songs" bear no resemblance whatsoever to actual real hip hop and basically are just excuses for video of people driving around idiotic cars with idiotically large chrome "rims" talking about how "hard" they are or whatever ad nauseum.
The reason people aren't buying music anymore is that all the record industry does is hold on to pathetic and artless derivatives of a genres that peaked decades ago. Are there any groups like The Beatles, U2, Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, The Doors, basically any good "rock" acts in mainstream channel at all anymore?
That's the obvious difference between now and years prior -- the record industry doesn't have a damn product. They have shit to sell.
You people act like Warner is some kind of independent expert and accurate fortune teller. Of course they are going to say "We expect HD DVD to 'die' a quick death." That's what they want to happen because they are a Blu-ray only studio and they're obviously going to say it is going to happen because the more people say that then the more likely it is for it to actually happen.
What do you mean by "medical technology" -- all the examples you mention are just technology being applied to medicine. Of course as engineering continue to do what they do technology keeps moving -- new machines come out, current machines become more widely applicable, etc. Of course it's the medical field's job to continue to apply the advancing technology. Is that really that exciting to you? Do you someohow see the recent years of this as somehow being different from the years before?
Does it render web pages correctly only when switched from the default mode to a "standards mode"? If so, then in practice its quality in "standards mode" is irrelevant because web developers will still have to make their sites incompatible with standards since 99% of Joe Blows are not going to be in "standards mode" and every web developer knows it. In other words, in reality, IE's disruption of the internet will only be perpetuated.
These stats have little meaning for one giant (I would think obvious) reason -- people don't buy their iPods from Amazon. I bet 90% of iPods are sold at either apple.com or Apple stores. Zunes are sold 3rd party.
Seems like everyone in the world that doesn't play video games wants to blame them for everything that's wrong with youth, the violence in society, etc.
They should stop bitching and start taking the violence out of TV, movies, and song lyrics first. They won't though because, since they watch movies and TV, they don't see its violence as being bad enough to make them get on soapbox. Yet, not playing video games, they're sure that video games are pure evil.
I don't even play any games really -- I use OS X and Linux, don't own any console. But I can sure see the double standard. How can people bitch about video games so much while not doing anything about violence in music, tv, and hollywood first?
It was Beta Software. You had to recognize this to install it. It was a free beta download. It was never part of Tiger. It was something you were given opportunity to try for free as beta software, but was originally intended to only become available with Leopard!
Please grasp this people.
When you installed it, it told you that it expired in October 2007!
No, Boot Camp before Leopard was always Beta only. You had to agree to recognize that before installing. It was originally only going to be available with Leopard, but then they decided to offer it as a Beta that you download from Apple. It never came on any macs before Leopard. You had to go download it (for free) as beta software.
My 10.4.11 with Bootcamp froze for about five hours during the screen where the choice between your OSes comes up. It was just the grey background with neither hd icon showing. I thought everything was toast. Left for a while in despair and total frustration -- it wouldn't even go into OS X -- but it seemingly magically "worked itself out" after something like 5 hours. Strange. Anyway, installed Leopard immediately because Bootcamp was supposed to stop working when Leopard released anyway and my livelihood unfortunatley depends on using Windows every day on my machine.
If you read the original agreement when install Bootcamp without Leopard (ie the pre-Leopard versions of Bootcamp), it tells you it is Beta software only and that it will expire in October 2007. And that's what it did.
I installed Leopard anyway -- the full, non-beta Bootcamp (ie the one in Leopard release) has a bunch of additional features and drivers (such as for eject button, volume buttons, lots of little details that the beta did not -- it's much better -- I highly recommend Leopard to any heavy Windows users.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't feel a little ridiculous saying that Toyota is greener than GM because they can't make an SUV or truck that sells even though they have 9 lines of them and have sunk the vast majority of their development resources into trucks over the last decade?
Couple little things:
The Trailblazer is based on the Canyon platform. The Trailblazer came out earlier because the Canyon got delayed for a long time. Yes they have different engines, but the Trailblazer is a truck-based SUV based on the Canyon platform. The Canyon is simply the latest Chevy smaller pickup (ie same line as S-10).
All of GM's new lines of SUV have been car-based, whereas as Toyota's have all been truck-based since the Highlander was introduced (almost 9 years ago).
The USA is not an urban land. It's predominantly made up of farmland and land that has yet to be developed. It's also a land of long highways and long drives to get to places/transport things. It's a land full of people needing pickup trucks. As such, it's a land where increases in fuel efficiency in pickup trucks have much greater impact on environment than improvements in efficiency of city cars.
Even if this was land equally split between rural and urban such that just as many people bought city cars as pickup trucks, even very small increases in efficiency of pickups would have greater impact on environment than larger increases in efficiency of small cars. Taking the general standard average of roughly 15k miles driven by average American per year, just one mpg increase in mileage on a 15mg vehicle saves about 70 gallons per year. This is the same as going from 30 mpg to 35 mpg in a small car.
The full-size pickup dual mode hybrid version of the Silverado isn't out yet, but the hybrid Tahoe gets 22mpg city whereas the Toyota Sequoia gets 13mpg.
The Avalanche is a 4 door P/U much like a 4-door Tundra, only its bed can convert from a 4-door P/U to one with a full-size bed and no rear seating whereas the Tundra's cannot. Do you really consider it an SUV?
The Escalade ESV is an Escalade, of course, just with an extra row of seating, not a different SUV. Same with the Suburban -- it's a Tahoe with different name and additional row of seats but 99% same parts.
You left out the 15mpg V6 FJ Cruiser out of your list of Toyotas.
Toyota came out with the Prius (developed through Japanese federal funding) in 1997. All but two of the 9 Toyota SUVs listed above were introduced afterwards, nearly every new model being the new largest in line-up.
In contrast, almost every one of the GM SUVs (or models of different name but similar size they replaced) above has existed for 2-5 decades -- they were low-volume work trucks for special purposes such as towing boats and operating in areas with poor roads that somehow got taken up by soccer moms in an arms race for largest minivan substitute on the road, rather than being created for soccer moms.
In contrast, the Japanese Big-3 have put an unprecedented amount of development resources into the creation of new lines of larger and larger SUVs and trucks than anyone in history over the last decade, whereas new lines of GM SUV have been smaller and more car-based than ever before.
The GM full-size hybrid saves more gasoline over a Tundra per year than a Prius does over any other compact car.
Hey it worked for Toyota -- have more models of SUV than any other car manufacturer on planet, but come out with one "green" car and you're a "green" car company, no matter the 8 independent lines of SUV and largest/least full efficient main-line pickups on the market. Likewise -- produce more polution than any other country on the planet, but come out with one "green" city and you're a "green" country, no matter the literal 50% of population having no access to clean drinking water and #1 cause of death in nation being air pollution.
I'm so glad I logged on to Slashdot to learn about a Sony/Toyota clone of an almost 10 year old device that no one cares about anymore. Especially since the device's only function is to transport people around, but the clone only does it at 1/3rd the speed and with 1/4th the range. Awesome technology. Terrific news.
The volt doesn't need to be plugged in. It just can. Without being plugged in, it's still an intrinsically much more efficient "hybrid" than the current ones in that the gas engine in it doesn't have any direct mechanical role in propulsion, but rather just charges the battery, thereby being able to always run at the most optimal conditions for volumetric efficiency.
To reiterate initial point though: The Volt has a charger built into it and does not need to be plugged in to still be fundamentally more efficient than any other vehicle on the road today.
Care to back any of this up with any kind of links or anything? Is this all coming out of your ass or can you show us anything to back up this idea that IBM dumped Apple? Year after year IBM's Gx processors were much much slower than their x86 competitors, so it'd appear you have things backwards.
I'm tired of links to notoriously biased news sources on politics on Slashdot. Aren't there enough political "news" sites and blogs out there already? Do we really need links to these other sites, their liberal or conservative or whatever biases aside? I could understand if this was some intriguing article in Scientific American that people might otherwise not have noticed or something, but it's freakin the NYTimes -- like the freakin biggest "news" web site on the web. Do we really need to be linking to Bush conspiracy, war is awful, etc articles to it like every day? Is that what Slashdot exists for -- a mirror site for giant political "news" sites.
I'm not even a Republican let alone really give a damn about politics. However, if I did, I just go to the NYTimes site myself. I'm just sick of it and it's time I said something. Bring back the old Slashdot. This Bush-hating, NYTimes loving one is just sad.
It's so funny how for over 20 years now every single time a new version of Windows comes out it's a huge disappointment relative to what it had supposedly going to be/have. Then a year after, like clockwork, we start hearing about how the next Windows is going to be so unbelievably awesome it's going to be an almost incomprehensible revolution in computing technology.
See also Sony Playstation for another example of the same "marketing strategy".
IE 5 and IE 5.5 where developed during the period during which it appeared the government was going to atually do something about their monopoly -- during the period when DOJ was building their case and everyone was getting ready for what should have been a huge trial.
Everyone in their right mind (presumably including MS) was expecting something big like a breakup of the company was going to happen. So MS was having to play by the rules there briefly rather than the usually sabotaging anything they didn't already have monopoly control of. Once the trial was over, MS go back to trying to block out competitors by including IE as default browser on every PC sold and making it deliberately incompatible with standards so all sites would have to develop for compatibility with IE, thus being incompatible with anything else.
Quite the opposite. HD-DVDs could be manufactured using mostly the same equipment as DVDs and didn't have the unplanned ridiculously expensive coating added to the design to try and reduce the extreme scratching problem Blu-Ray had. HD-DVDs were always much less expensive to make both in terms of the media and the hardware.
What are you talking about? The battery life of the Macbook Air is amazingly good -- comparable to the current Macbook Pros and drastically better than the last version of Macbook Pro (Core Duo).
Anyone know what the die size of the XBox 360's IBM cpu is? Wouldn't be surprised if it's the same, of course.
Well, don't forget that the DOJ basically said "MS has a monopoly but we aren't going to do anything about it and will just let them continue about their merry anti-competitive way" only a few years ago. It'd practically be a double standard if they were to stop Google from buying Yahoo in a way, wouldn't it?
Did it occur to them, by any chance, that instead of the decades of great music the preceded this one, nowadys "music" is just competely empty crap sung by ex-Micky Mouse club tools like Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake or else "hip hop musicians" whose "songs" bear no resemblance whatsoever to actual real hip hop and basically are just excuses for video of people driving around idiotic cars with idiotically large chrome "rims" talking about how "hard" they are or whatever ad nauseum.
The reason people aren't buying music anymore is that all the record industry does is hold on to pathetic and artless derivatives of a genres that peaked decades ago. Are there any groups like The Beatles, U2, Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, The Doors, basically any good "rock" acts in mainstream channel at all anymore?
That's the obvious difference between now and years prior -- the record industry doesn't have a damn product. They have shit to sell.
You people act like Warner is some kind of independent expert and accurate fortune teller. Of course they are going to say "We expect HD DVD to 'die' a quick death." That's what they want to happen because they are a Blu-ray only studio and they're obviously going to say it is going to happen because the more people say that then the more likely it is for it to actually happen.
What do you mean by "medical technology" -- all the examples you mention are just technology being applied to medicine. Of course as engineering continue to do what they do technology keeps moving -- new machines come out, current machines become more widely applicable, etc. Of course it's the medical field's job to continue to apply the advancing technology. Is that really that exciting to you? Do you someohow see the recent years of this as somehow being different from the years before?
Does it render web pages correctly only when switched from the default mode to a "standards mode"? If so, then in practice its quality in "standards mode" is irrelevant because web developers will still have to make their sites incompatible with standards since 99% of Joe Blows are not going to be in "standards mode" and every web developer knows it. In other words, in reality, IE's disruption of the internet will only be perpetuated.
The reason there are two is that Intel wanted to create a competitor to Firewire. So blame Intel.
These stats have little meaning for one giant (I would think obvious) reason -- people don't buy their iPods from Amazon. I bet 90% of iPods are sold at either apple.com or Apple stores. Zunes are sold 3rd party.
Seems like everyone in the world that doesn't play video games wants to blame them for everything that's wrong with youth, the violence in society, etc.
They should stop bitching and start taking the violence out of TV, movies, and song lyrics first. They won't though because, since they watch movies and TV, they don't see its violence as being bad enough to make them get on soapbox. Yet, not playing video games, they're sure that video games are pure evil.
I don't even play any games really -- I use OS X and Linux, don't own any console. But I can sure see the double standard. How can people bitch about video games so much while not doing anything about violence in music, tv, and hollywood first?
My work automatically backs up every few hours to company server.
The issues with Boot camp began in October. Go to Macrumors forums there's a ton of info on the topic there. This is old news.
It was Beta Software. You had to recognize this to install it. It was a free beta download. It was never part of Tiger. It was something you were given opportunity to try for free as beta software, but was originally intended to only become available with Leopard!
Please grasp this people.
When you installed it, it told you that it expired in October 2007!
No, Boot Camp before Leopard was always Beta only. You had to agree to recognize that before installing. It was originally only going to be available with Leopard, but then they decided to offer it as a Beta that you download from Apple. It never came on any macs before Leopard. You had to go download it (for free) as beta software.
My 10.4.11 with Bootcamp froze for about five hours during the screen where the choice between your OSes comes up. It was just the grey background with neither hd icon showing. I thought everything was toast. Left for a while in despair and total frustration -- it wouldn't even go into OS X -- but it seemingly magically "worked itself out" after something like 5 hours. Strange. Anyway, installed Leopard immediately because Bootcamp was supposed to stop working when Leopard released anyway and my livelihood unfortunatley depends on using Windows every day on my machine.
If you read the original agreement when install Bootcamp without Leopard (ie the pre-Leopard versions of Bootcamp), it tells you it is Beta software only and that it will expire in October 2007. And that's what it did.
I installed Leopard anyway -- the full, non-beta Bootcamp (ie the one in Leopard release) has a bunch of additional features and drivers (such as for eject button, volume buttons, lots of little details that the beta did not -- it's much better -- I highly recommend Leopard to any heavy Windows users.