People squawk about the price but consider these factors. How many light bulbs are left on more than an hour a day in most homes? Say living room and kitchen? Maybe a family room or office? Bedroom? Okay so we are talking four or five bulbs, the rest can be compact florescent. Even at $60 you are talking about $240 to $300 to replace all the important lights in the house. Remember nation wide lighting is a large percentage of the power used. In the average house it's 14%. Say you have a $100 power bill and your lights run $14. Let's be generous and call the florescents $4 of that so the LEDs would cost around $2.50 a month so the savings was $7.50. It would take 40 months to pay them off. That's assuming 5 bulbs with no discounting or rebates. If they last 10 years then you get 6.5+ years of saving $7.50 a month and that's conservative. The returns are better than the stock market. The speed of return would be higher if you just replaced the 2 or 3 most used bulbs but the savings are still impressive on 5 bulbs. Buy one bulb a year and in 5 years they are all replaced and by then they'll be cheap enough to replace the rest of the florescent bulbs. My mind is constantly blown when people complain about paying more now just so they can get cheap or free power later. If solar panels payback in 5 to 7 years you are talking 20 years of free power and people still complain that they have to spend extra money now. Most homes can cut their power bills in half with more efficient appliances and most pay a hell of a lot more than a $100 a month. If everyone got on board they'd save a lot of money and we could shut down some coal plants instead of building more. People keep calling it a rip off and the bulb companies are cheating you but how is saving you a ton of money cheating you?
Seems like a lot of wasted space. The bulk of the Slashdot community will never change their opinion and the other side won't change their opinion. The arguments are always the same so why is the subject matter worthy of three posts in a row? Yes they are slightly different but the responses aren't. We might as well run three posts in a row on Evolution verses Creationism. I'm not trying to troll but it seems like the whole thread ends up being redundant and we're into the second decade of the debate. There just has to be other tech stories to cover. There's lots of cool stuff going on in the maker community. Things like the Cube bringing slick professional 3D printing at an afordable price $1,299.
http://cubify.com/cube/index.aspx
Or a $249 vacuum former kit.
http://www.phlatboyz.com/Phlatformer-Kit_p_10.html
It just seems there's more happening in the tech world than limiting copyrights and the downloading fight. If some one comes up with a fresh slant on the subject I'm thrilled to hear it but the two sides are so far apart I don't see any compromise in the near future if ever. Just saying to the editors can we keep it to a couple of stories a day and space them out a bit?
He says in the video that they absorb a ton a CO2 a year. The US releases 5.5 billion tons a year so just this country would need 5.5 billion of these lamps to absorb it all. He also claims he's the only one that ever thought of using algae. There are a lot of people working in algae it's just you have to work on a large scale for it to have any affect.
Wow 1999! Did you have to post in Latin or Sanskrit back then? Our history class in school says they were using something called Windows 98 at the time and most people wore an early form of blue jeans. Did they have iPods or were you still scratching "1"s and "0" into your MP3 players?
Really it's just an update of what has been going on since at least the mid 1800s. Back then they would question friends and relatives and check newspapers and birth records. Even the diver isn't all that different from having some one dress up as a ghost or having a veil on a string dance around. People believe even lame gags because they want to believe. The internet like with most things just makes it quicker and easier.
"I'm not sure I want people playing Angry Birds while they drive"
They just need at add a speed dial button for your insurance company. On the bright side you can play it while you wait for the police and tow truck to arrive.
An iPad is the elegant solution. You could even get creative and route out a place for one in a cabinet door so it was at eye level then use the adapter to keep it plugged in so you'd never have to charge it. They are instant on and if you have wifi set up you can download movies and music. Add in some bluetooth speakers and you get decent sound. Honestly you'll spend a nearly a grand getting a set up that will be bulky and take up counter space. Yes there are cheapie computers but they are large. I'm talking a nice machine that has a small foot print. I used to use Shuttle boxes which are around the size of a toaster but it's a build it yourself. Then you end up with a monitor and cords and it's not very portable. You even get Facetime with an iPad so you can do video calling. It's $500 bucks and you avoid a lot of grief and expense. If you leave it plugged in the battery life isn't an issue so it could easily last you five years with no maintenance.
I know we are all supposed to point out how foolish they are being but they do have reasons for such a strong reaction. Up until Chernobyl they were the only country to deal with major contamination in heavily populated areas. Even Chernobyl was in a rural area not two major cities. It badly scarred them not only physically but mentally. The recent disaster effectively killed a chunk of the country and Japan already has a shortage of land especially farmland. It may have been smarter to phase it out but the fear of a second such disaster was too great. Japan is fairly new to nuclear power and they are in a unique situation. The country is very active geologically and earthquakes are commonplace and it has a lot of potential for similar disasters. None of us can know the real position they were in. The accident happened because they got sloppy and after reviewing other plants they may have seen shortcomings in the other plants that could have lead to disasters and the upgrades would take too long. I'm just saying there may be more to it than we know and Japan has a lot of pride and it's hard for them to admit they got sloppy. It's easy to say all the disasters are human error but it's impossible to take human error out of the equation. Growing up I heard there would statistically be one disaster every thousand years. If statistics were accurate we would be safe for the next three thousand years. Human error will always be a factor. As costs rise also there's a tendency to cut corners increasing risk. That's what caused the gulf oil spill. All the reactors in this country are rapidly approaching the end of their projected lives and many have already passed it. The nuclear materials have a corrosive affect on the pipes so the risk keeps going up on existing plants. The point I'm trying to make is it isn't as cut and dry as most think. There are a lot of pros and cons. Fusion makes a lot more sense but in truth I've never heard anything to convince me it'll ever be practical. For all it's potential every test so far takes nearly as much energy as it produces. We need safe, stable, long term solutions and there is no magic bullet one size fits all solution. In the near term we need all of the sources including coal and oil but a critical part of the puzzle will be that ugly word, conservation. Trust me, the Japanese will be hearing that word a lot over the next few years. Used wisely conservation is a powerful part of the puzzle. Obama got laughed at for suggesting properly inflated tires would save as much oil as the arctic reserve would contribute. As funny as some found it the fact is he was right. If everyone embraced conservation they wouldn't have to change their lifestyles significantly and we could put off new power plants for a decade or more. That would buy us time to make the needed changes including building more nuclear plants if that's the solution. I'll predict this, Japan will become the world leader in conservation. It's the only way they'll survive.
How long until we are encouraged to get "subsidized" implants so we get helpful reminders about "special offers". Then one day I find myself getting offers of dick pills in my sleep by my subsidized implants. I find touch interfaces annoying enough so why on earth would I be implanted with a device that will be out of date in a year? Implants mean being tracked 24/7 and being at the mercy of those making the implants. Already there's talk of companies requiring implants to access facilities. The first time I saw some one had been implanted with a tracking chip I didn't say how wonderful I got the cold sweats. Most people are sheep which means I get swept along with what they'll accept. Great our new computer system at work requires implants so I either agree to it or I get fired or handed a broom. Can't happen? Flown on a plane lately? They practically require DNA. Everyone accepts it because it makes us "safer". Millions of people jump through hoops and give up rights without a shred of proof that it makes us safer and yet they accept it. Before the technology moves forward I want a law banning a requirement to have the implants for any reason. Fine if it's an option but as soon as ANYONE requires you to have it to have a job or access a bank account our freedom is long gone. People can say how cool all they want, the first time a chip in my arm vibrates to tell me I have a new spam e-mail is the moment I dig it out with a dull spoon.
They are calling it a translation error and that in fact the company motto is "Do Evil". Apparently "Don't" doesn't translate well from corporate BS to plain speak.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to make invading our privacy easier on them. Already we are facing all our car's movements being trackable and now they want to make sure every form of communication is easily accessible. At what point does unreasonable search and seizure kick in? This almost ties into the TSA story. The Supreme Court needs to define "Unreasonable search and seizure" since the government seems to think ALL search and seizure is reasonable. Need I bring up drug forfeiture? You can take a tourist on a day fishing trip and if he has a brick of cocaine with him they seize your boat and the government feels that's reasonable even when you had no way to know without illegally searching your customer.
People don't realize how ineffective they are. Since the "new and improved" TSA with the draconian measures came into being they haven't found a single would be terrorist. Not one. Every plot that was foiled was by law enforcement before they boarded a plane. The TSA has proven to be a pack of clowns by targeting models, actors and Congressmen, you know the high risk groups for terrorist, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. If they want to grope children become a Catholic priest. It's become a new playground for perverts and pedophiles who get their jollies off harassing the public and get paid for it. Just try saying no to one and find out how quick you become an actual terrorist instead of just a suspected one. I haven't flown in years because of the outrageous and constantly changing baggage fees and TSA. There's a point where it simply isn't worth it and we passed that years ago as far as I'm concerned.
Stem cells and engineered genes would give the potential for an outright cure. Methods like this seem to reek of ongoing treatment. Diabetes treatment is a multibillion dollar a year industry so I think the industry will view a cure as a bad thing. A treatment that requires regular maintenance would be more desirable. Honestly when have you heard of a cure for a cronic condition that didn't require regular drug treatment? Even transplants require anti-rejection drugs. I read about a method for getting rid of harmful bacteria that caused tooth decay over a decade ago but since then silence. The approach was sound and the early testing worked yet the procedure never got past testing. It involved reducing the harmful bacteria with antibiotics then replacing it with a harmless one. This actually occurs naturally in some people. Most don't realize we generally catch the bad bacteria from our mothers sharing food. If you haven't caught the bad bacteria by age five you generally get colonized with the harmless version. I've read about several methods for outright curing diabetes that sound like they should work but long before there's a cure available I'll bet there will be more effective "treatments". Just look at the number of pills most people over 60 take? They are turning us into high priced drug addicts.
"Investigation from an activist shareholder revealed that his degree was actually in accounting"
Back when I worked for Disney we called Eisner that guy from accounting, it's actually a Berke Breathed quote we borrowed. It's amazing how many of these supposed CEOs are glorified accountants. Kind of explains the whole lack of imagination in big business.
The "terrorist" are middle east versions of neo-nazi rednecks. Most of them aren't entirely sure why they hate us but they do. Fighting us gives purpose to their otherwise sad existence. The Saudi terrorist, the ones that actually blew up the towers, blame us for their own people robbing them blind of oil money. Why didn't Bin laden encrypt his files? Why wasn't he in hiding? He had people in the Pakistani government protecting him and apparently the rest of the Al Qaeda terrorist network considered him put out to pasture. He was the figure head of a pathetic group of thugs. I just saw a report that it finally dawned on these morons that it's easier to start fires than to bring down planes. Even then they have to design complex bombs rather than matches and candles. They over think problems and miss the obvious. People think genius is coming up with complex solutions, it's coming up with simple solutions to complex problems. These guys aren't geniuses.
What disturbs me is how politicized science has become. Science should be a discipline of absolutes. A revelation like this calls into question every decision she has made making her an ineffectual leader.
My Avatar was Jar Jar Binks so apparently I'm a pot smoking rastafarian. Not sure if it gets any worse. Most find that they are Jedi knights but I find I'm a stoner looser that everyone hates. There must be something lower in the Lucas universe like the trash monster. No, now that I think about it there isn't. Even the trash monster squid had some self respect.
Each standard def movie is around a gig of data. High def can be several times that. Add up music and apps and you might be shocked how much data Apple transports through their data centers. On top of that there's the OS and other Apple software from their non handheld app store. There is also their on line storage of data and other services. The Apple data centers transfer massive amounts of data so using renewable sources is a very good thing. Most of Amazon's business is physical not digital where as iTunes is all digital. Google is pure on-line so they eat a lot of bandwidth. I say good for Apple for trying to offset energy usage with more sustainable sources.
Natural selection doesn't mean what most think. Fertility rates among the more intelligent members of society have dropped like a rock while birth rates are still high among the lower third. It can be argued that intelligence is a poor survival trait. Social factors create a form of evolution even if environmental ones are largely removed. What is seen as attractive socially is influx so evolutionary pressures created by society is also in flux. We aren't environmentally adapting so much as socially adapting. If society collapses the downside is it may leave us poor candidates to survive our environment.
But there's no way I'm jumping through yet another hoop to use Hulu. The content sucks and rarely changes. Sure they have some current TV but that's called a DVR. The old TV shows they have are spotty at best and the movies are a joke. I haven't watched it in months and every time I check back there's nothing that interests me. There's little on cable that interests me but at least there's new content all the time. TV in general is miserable and streaming isn't that much better. It'd be cheaper to just buy what shows I watch but it's more about having to wait to 12 months. Honestly there's 2 or 3 shows in any given week I care about seeing at all and I go to the theater a couple of times a year. I even find it hard to find a movie to rent from Red Box and I check them out once a month. To put it into perspective I'm a film and TV fan and grew up on TV and back in the 70s and 80s and would go every weekend to see something in the theater. The truth is Hulu isn't killing them lack of content is killing them. People boast of streaming, streaming what? I wouldn't waste the bandwidth on most of them. Most fan productions are cheesy versions of mainstream movies and shows, most in fact being knock offs. There are rare exceptions like Iron Sky and the like but still a couple of movies from fans a year that are watchable isn't a replacement. We need professionals making the content but we need to get the corporations out of the business. Once the profit is gone it can collapse then maybe something better will replace what we have now.
I'm not seeing the "Clever" you keep repeating. They've been so clever that Apple blasted past them and left the company in the dust due in large part to a lack of innovation at Microsoft. The Zune was a miserable failure and very late to the game. Nook isn't the top eBook reader Kindle is especially with the Fire selling strong in the low side of the reader market. Nook's future is uncertain because it's still heavily tied to B&N and their future is seriously in doubt. To me it sounds like an other Microsoft, late to the game with a product that may not be able to compete. They weren't playing it safe they sat on their hands until it got obvious eBook readers were going to be huge so they didn't have time to develop a product so they bought into the Nook since it was the only one they could buy a stake in. I'm missing the "Clever" in all this?
Slashdot Mirror
I was always told the cause of seeing boulders move in Ireland was Whiskey.
People squawk about the price but consider these factors. How many light bulbs are left on more than an hour a day in most homes? Say living room and kitchen? Maybe a family room or office? Bedroom? Okay so we are talking four or five bulbs, the rest can be compact florescent. Even at $60 you are talking about $240 to $300 to replace all the important lights in the house. Remember nation wide lighting is a large percentage of the power used. In the average house it's 14%. Say you have a $100 power bill and your lights run $14. Let's be generous and call the florescents $4 of that so the LEDs would cost around $2.50 a month so the savings was $7.50. It would take 40 months to pay them off. That's assuming 5 bulbs with no discounting or rebates. If they last 10 years then you get 6.5+ years of saving $7.50 a month and that's conservative. The returns are better than the stock market. The speed of return would be higher if you just replaced the 2 or 3 most used bulbs but the savings are still impressive on 5 bulbs. Buy one bulb a year and in 5 years they are all replaced and by then they'll be cheap enough to replace the rest of the florescent bulbs. My mind is constantly blown when people complain about paying more now just so they can get cheap or free power later. If solar panels payback in 5 to 7 years you are talking 20 years of free power and people still complain that they have to spend extra money now. Most homes can cut their power bills in half with more efficient appliances and most pay a hell of a lot more than a $100 a month. If everyone got on board they'd save a lot of money and we could shut down some coal plants instead of building more. People keep calling it a rip off and the bulb companies are cheating you but how is saving you a ton of money cheating you?
Seems like a lot of wasted space. The bulk of the Slashdot community will never change their opinion and the other side won't change their opinion. The arguments are always the same so why is the subject matter worthy of three posts in a row? Yes they are slightly different but the responses aren't. We might as well run three posts in a row on Evolution verses Creationism. I'm not trying to troll but it seems like the whole thread ends up being redundant and we're into the second decade of the debate. There just has to be other tech stories to cover. There's lots of cool stuff going on in the maker community. Things like the Cube bringing slick professional 3D printing at an afordable price $1,299. http://cubify.com/cube/index.aspx Or a $249 vacuum former kit. http://www.phlatboyz.com/Phlatformer-Kit_p_10.html It just seems there's more happening in the tech world than limiting copyrights and the downloading fight. If some one comes up with a fresh slant on the subject I'm thrilled to hear it but the two sides are so far apart I don't see any compromise in the near future if ever. Just saying to the editors can we keep it to a couple of stories a day and space them out a bit?
He says in the video that they absorb a ton a CO2 a year. The US releases 5.5 billion tons a year so just this country would need 5.5 billion of these lamps to absorb it all. He also claims he's the only one that ever thought of using algae. There are a lot of people working in algae it's just you have to work on a large scale for it to have any affect.
Wow 1999! Did you have to post in Latin or Sanskrit back then? Our history class in school says they were using something called Windows 98 at the time and most people wore an early form of blue jeans. Did they have iPods or were you still scratching "1"s and "0" into your MP3 players?
Really it's just an update of what has been going on since at least the mid 1800s. Back then they would question friends and relatives and check newspapers and birth records. Even the diver isn't all that different from having some one dress up as a ghost or having a veil on a string dance around. People believe even lame gags because they want to believe. The internet like with most things just makes it quicker and easier.
"I'm not sure I want people playing Angry Birds while they drive" They just need at add a speed dial button for your insurance company. On the bright side you can play it while you wait for the police and tow truck to arrive.
An iPad is the elegant solution. You could even get creative and route out a place for one in a cabinet door so it was at eye level then use the adapter to keep it plugged in so you'd never have to charge it. They are instant on and if you have wifi set up you can download movies and music. Add in some bluetooth speakers and you get decent sound. Honestly you'll spend a nearly a grand getting a set up that will be bulky and take up counter space. Yes there are cheapie computers but they are large. I'm talking a nice machine that has a small foot print. I used to use Shuttle boxes which are around the size of a toaster but it's a build it yourself. Then you end up with a monitor and cords and it's not very portable. You even get Facetime with an iPad so you can do video calling. It's $500 bucks and you avoid a lot of grief and expense. If you leave it plugged in the battery life isn't an issue so it could easily last you five years with no maintenance.
I know we are all supposed to point out how foolish they are being but they do have reasons for such a strong reaction. Up until Chernobyl they were the only country to deal with major contamination in heavily populated areas. Even Chernobyl was in a rural area not two major cities. It badly scarred them not only physically but mentally. The recent disaster effectively killed a chunk of the country and Japan already has a shortage of land especially farmland. It may have been smarter to phase it out but the fear of a second such disaster was too great. Japan is fairly new to nuclear power and they are in a unique situation. The country is very active geologically and earthquakes are commonplace and it has a lot of potential for similar disasters. None of us can know the real position they were in. The accident happened because they got sloppy and after reviewing other plants they may have seen shortcomings in the other plants that could have lead to disasters and the upgrades would take too long. I'm just saying there may be more to it than we know and Japan has a lot of pride and it's hard for them to admit they got sloppy. It's easy to say all the disasters are human error but it's impossible to take human error out of the equation. Growing up I heard there would statistically be one disaster every thousand years. If statistics were accurate we would be safe for the next three thousand years. Human error will always be a factor. As costs rise also there's a tendency to cut corners increasing risk. That's what caused the gulf oil spill. All the reactors in this country are rapidly approaching the end of their projected lives and many have already passed it. The nuclear materials have a corrosive affect on the pipes so the risk keeps going up on existing plants. The point I'm trying to make is it isn't as cut and dry as most think. There are a lot of pros and cons. Fusion makes a lot more sense but in truth I've never heard anything to convince me it'll ever be practical. For all it's potential every test so far takes nearly as much energy as it produces. We need safe, stable, long term solutions and there is no magic bullet one size fits all solution. In the near term we need all of the sources including coal and oil but a critical part of the puzzle will be that ugly word, conservation. Trust me, the Japanese will be hearing that word a lot over the next few years. Used wisely conservation is a powerful part of the puzzle. Obama got laughed at for suggesting properly inflated tires would save as much oil as the arctic reserve would contribute. As funny as some found it the fact is he was right. If everyone embraced conservation they wouldn't have to change their lifestyles significantly and we could put off new power plants for a decade or more. That would buy us time to make the needed changes including building more nuclear plants if that's the solution. I'll predict this, Japan will become the world leader in conservation. It's the only way they'll survive.
How long until we are encouraged to get "subsidized" implants so we get helpful reminders about "special offers". Then one day I find myself getting offers of dick pills in my sleep by my subsidized implants. I find touch interfaces annoying enough so why on earth would I be implanted with a device that will be out of date in a year? Implants mean being tracked 24/7 and being at the mercy of those making the implants. Already there's talk of companies requiring implants to access facilities. The first time I saw some one had been implanted with a tracking chip I didn't say how wonderful I got the cold sweats. Most people are sheep which means I get swept along with what they'll accept. Great our new computer system at work requires implants so I either agree to it or I get fired or handed a broom. Can't happen? Flown on a plane lately? They practically require DNA. Everyone accepts it because it makes us "safer". Millions of people jump through hoops and give up rights without a shred of proof that it makes us safer and yet they accept it. Before the technology moves forward I want a law banning a requirement to have the implants for any reason. Fine if it's an option but as soon as ANYONE requires you to have it to have a job or access a bank account our freedom is long gone. People can say how cool all they want, the first time a chip in my arm vibrates to tell me I have a new spam e-mail is the moment I dig it out with a dull spoon.
They are calling it a translation error and that in fact the company motto is "Do Evil". Apparently "Don't" doesn't translate well from corporate BS to plain speak.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to make invading our privacy easier on them. Already we are facing all our car's movements being trackable and now they want to make sure every form of communication is easily accessible. At what point does unreasonable search and seizure kick in? This almost ties into the TSA story. The Supreme Court needs to define "Unreasonable search and seizure" since the government seems to think ALL search and seizure is reasonable. Need I bring up drug forfeiture? You can take a tourist on a day fishing trip and if he has a brick of cocaine with him they seize your boat and the government feels that's reasonable even when you had no way to know without illegally searching your customer.
People don't realize how ineffective they are. Since the "new and improved" TSA with the draconian measures came into being they haven't found a single would be terrorist. Not one. Every plot that was foiled was by law enforcement before they boarded a plane. The TSA has proven to be a pack of clowns by targeting models, actors and Congressmen, you know the high risk groups for terrorist, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. If they want to grope children become a Catholic priest. It's become a new playground for perverts and pedophiles who get their jollies off harassing the public and get paid for it. Just try saying no to one and find out how quick you become an actual terrorist instead of just a suspected one. I haven't flown in years because of the outrageous and constantly changing baggage fees and TSA. There's a point where it simply isn't worth it and we passed that years ago as far as I'm concerned.
Stem cells and engineered genes would give the potential for an outright cure. Methods like this seem to reek of ongoing treatment. Diabetes treatment is a multibillion dollar a year industry so I think the industry will view a cure as a bad thing. A treatment that requires regular maintenance would be more desirable. Honestly when have you heard of a cure for a cronic condition that didn't require regular drug treatment? Even transplants require anti-rejection drugs. I read about a method for getting rid of harmful bacteria that caused tooth decay over a decade ago but since then silence. The approach was sound and the early testing worked yet the procedure never got past testing. It involved reducing the harmful bacteria with antibiotics then replacing it with a harmless one. This actually occurs naturally in some people. Most don't realize we generally catch the bad bacteria from our mothers sharing food. If you haven't caught the bad bacteria by age five you generally get colonized with the harmless version. I've read about several methods for outright curing diabetes that sound like they should work but long before there's a cure available I'll bet there will be more effective "treatments". Just look at the number of pills most people over 60 take? They are turning us into high priced drug addicts.
Atheist porn fans have less malware. The benefits to not being a religious prude just keep on a coming.
"Investigation from an activist shareholder revealed that his degree was actually in accounting" Back when I worked for Disney we called Eisner that guy from accounting, it's actually a Berke Breathed quote we borrowed. It's amazing how many of these supposed CEOs are glorified accountants. Kind of explains the whole lack of imagination in big business.
The "terrorist" are middle east versions of neo-nazi rednecks. Most of them aren't entirely sure why they hate us but they do. Fighting us gives purpose to their otherwise sad existence. The Saudi terrorist, the ones that actually blew up the towers, blame us for their own people robbing them blind of oil money. Why didn't Bin laden encrypt his files? Why wasn't he in hiding? He had people in the Pakistani government protecting him and apparently the rest of the Al Qaeda terrorist network considered him put out to pasture. He was the figure head of a pathetic group of thugs. I just saw a report that it finally dawned on these morons that it's easier to start fires than to bring down planes. Even then they have to design complex bombs rather than matches and candles. They over think problems and miss the obvious. People think genius is coming up with complex solutions, it's coming up with simple solutions to complex problems. These guys aren't geniuses.
What disturbs me is how politicized science has become. Science should be a discipline of absolutes. A revelation like this calls into question every decision she has made making her an ineffectual leader.
is getting the sharks to hold still.
My Avatar was Jar Jar Binks so apparently I'm a pot smoking rastafarian. Not sure if it gets any worse. Most find that they are Jedi knights but I find I'm a stoner looser that everyone hates. There must be something lower in the Lucas universe like the trash monster. No, now that I think about it there isn't. Even the trash monster squid had some self respect.
Each standard def movie is around a gig of data. High def can be several times that. Add up music and apps and you might be shocked how much data Apple transports through their data centers. On top of that there's the OS and other Apple software from their non handheld app store. There is also their on line storage of data and other services. The Apple data centers transfer massive amounts of data so using renewable sources is a very good thing. Most of Amazon's business is physical not digital where as iTunes is all digital. Google is pure on-line so they eat a lot of bandwidth. I say good for Apple for trying to offset energy usage with more sustainable sources.
How do you strap a shark to a 747?
Natural selection doesn't mean what most think. Fertility rates among the more intelligent members of society have dropped like a rock while birth rates are still high among the lower third. It can be argued that intelligence is a poor survival trait. Social factors create a form of evolution even if environmental ones are largely removed. What is seen as attractive socially is influx so evolutionary pressures created by society is also in flux. We aren't environmentally adapting so much as socially adapting. If society collapses the downside is it may leave us poor candidates to survive our environment.
But there's no way I'm jumping through yet another hoop to use Hulu. The content sucks and rarely changes. Sure they have some current TV but that's called a DVR. The old TV shows they have are spotty at best and the movies are a joke. I haven't watched it in months and every time I check back there's nothing that interests me. There's little on cable that interests me but at least there's new content all the time. TV in general is miserable and streaming isn't that much better. It'd be cheaper to just buy what shows I watch but it's more about having to wait to 12 months. Honestly there's 2 or 3 shows in any given week I care about seeing at all and I go to the theater a couple of times a year. I even find it hard to find a movie to rent from Red Box and I check them out once a month. To put it into perspective I'm a film and TV fan and grew up on TV and back in the 70s and 80s and would go every weekend to see something in the theater. The truth is Hulu isn't killing them lack of content is killing them. People boast of streaming, streaming what? I wouldn't waste the bandwidth on most of them. Most fan productions are cheesy versions of mainstream movies and shows, most in fact being knock offs. There are rare exceptions like Iron Sky and the like but still a couple of movies from fans a year that are watchable isn't a replacement. We need professionals making the content but we need to get the corporations out of the business. Once the profit is gone it can collapse then maybe something better will replace what we have now.
I'm not seeing the "Clever" you keep repeating. They've been so clever that Apple blasted past them and left the company in the dust due in large part to a lack of innovation at Microsoft. The Zune was a miserable failure and very late to the game. Nook isn't the top eBook reader Kindle is especially with the Fire selling strong in the low side of the reader market. Nook's future is uncertain because it's still heavily tied to B&N and their future is seriously in doubt. To me it sounds like an other Microsoft, late to the game with a product that may not be able to compete. They weren't playing it safe they sat on their hands until it got obvious eBook readers were going to be huge so they didn't have time to develop a product so they bought into the Nook since it was the only one they could buy a stake in. I'm missing the "Clever" in all this?