...as noted in the article but not in the summary, the "client to beat" is the excellent free, open source, GPL-licensed, and highly customizable Adium (more info).
(The summary does mention the other five of the six clients reviewed in the article.)
This is often not a problem in institutional settings.
For example, our Microsoft Enterprise Volume License Agreement covers Windows XP, Windows Vista Enterprise, Office XP, and Office 2007 usage on all institutionally owned systems, including Apple equipment, and including in virtualization.
And, we have our own support mechanisms for Windows.
Apple doesn't want to sell or support Windows, so for individual buyers, what you're saying may be more relevant. But for institutional/enterprise/government/education buyers, they already likely have many options for access to Microsoft software and operating systems other than simply full-price retail.
Departmental buyers here can simply buy a Mac, and get Windows and Office on our EVLA for basically free (just the cost of media), all completely legal and covered.
The fact that a Mac comes with everything you need to edit movies and photos and turn the result into DVDs distinguishes it from every other computer, and hence is noteworthy.
Yes. And that's fine.
The fact that it can run Windows does not.
The fact that a *Mac* easily/natively/seamlessly runs Windows doesn't "distinguish" it from other computers, and that's exactly the point. And it does distinguish it from every other Mac for the over-two-decades before Intel-based Macs started shipping (horridly slow emulation aside, no matter how well it was done).
And as I said elsewhere, the fact that Macs can now run Windows is the single biggest reason people are buying Macs in many markets, especially education, research, and government, and there are still many people who don't understand that, Yes, Macs Really Can Run Windows.
It was at least worth a passing sentence in the article.
But saying that the laptop comes with Mac OS X, Safari, and iLife is important?
This is the single biggest factor in new Mac purchases at my institution, and many other settings.
Whether it comes with iDVD and GarageBand and iCal is not in the least.
And many, many people still don't fully understand that, yes, it really, really can run Windows. And yes, your Windows app will really, really work. Yes, even that one. Yes, really.
Wouldn't you agree that warrants at least a sentence alongside all the other drivel in the article?
"the notebooks come with [...] iLife '06. iLife '06 includes Apple's next-generation digital lifestyle applications: iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, GarageBand and iWeb."
How come they don't mention the OS has a *nix underbelly?
Because that's not relevant to the much, much larger number and percentage of people who might have casually considered Mac OS X and Apple hardware, might not yet understand these things can easily run Windows or any other x86 OS. Yes: people who might have at times considered a switch might not understand one of the most aspects of the Intel-based Macs: not having to give up the applications you may still need on Windows, and finally being able to do it in a practical, usable way.
How come they don't mention that Macs plug into the wall?
They actually do. Twice.
"All models include [...] Apple's MagSafe power adapter [...]"
"[...] the MagSafe Power Adapter [...]"
Perhaps Apple itself wants to position its hardware away from Windows and being "PC-like."
Uh, this isn't from "Apple". It's from a tech publication.
Which is the point.
Perhaps it's not relevant to the discussion regarding a simple hardware revision.
By that standard, nearly everything that is actually mentioned in the article is even less relevant.
Perhaps that comment is just a desire to see any Apple news be a commercial.
The fact that you even say that proves my point that the fact that Intel-based Macs can run Windows is kind of an important element in the decision of many purchasers. In fact, mentioning that it has the capability to easily run Windows makes it less of an Apple "commercial", by all of the previous wildly contradictory comments you made.
If you're going to troll, at least do a decent job of it, or at a minimum RTFA, and try to hide your jealousy a little while you're at it.
I even had a sentence in my post about the fact that the only thing you could even say this thing was missing for a general purpose laptop was a physical right mouse button on the laptop itself, and then deleted it, thinking we were beyond constantly carping about that.
Apple simply issued a statement about its product environmental plans, among other things.
Numerous other vendors were "greener" by Greenpeace standards because they had a public "environmental plan", or even a "plan to have a plan", whereas Apple was silent on futures as it relates to future products, as it always is.
Perhaps Jobs thought it pragmatic to offer its plan publicly so that it would stop getting hammered by Greenpeace as having one of the worst environmental commitments in the industry, when in reality it has one of the best (sure, sure, cue the "but so-and-so is better/first/whatever than Apple is such-and-such category" comments). And besides, I thought it was actions, not lip service about possible future directions, that actually mattered?
But the bottom line is Apple didn't "surrender"; it just published what its already-existing environmental plans were. If you call that a "surrender", then, hey, wave the white flag, Apple.
...a link to the actual MacBook Pro web page and specifications, since that's what people here probably care about, as opposed to a "TechNewsWorld" article being the only thing linked in the summary?
Also, while Apple folks and other tech-savvy folks may know the Intel-based Macs run Windows, why does the news article not even mention that? For many people even considering buying a Mac, the fact that a laptop like this can easily run Windows natively or seamlessly alongside Mac OS X with packages like Parallels Desktop at least bears repeating.
The next time you get pulled over for doing 70 in a 55 mph zone, be sure to tell the cop, "Hey, that guy on the on-ramp doing 35 is accelerating much harder than I am! Why don't you pull him over?"
If you want to make an irrelevant analogy and miss the point, fine, let's do it:
Because assuming the guy on the on-ramp keeps his acceleration pace, if the cop had waited about 30 seconds longer, he'd find that he'll be doing 130 in a 55, so the focus on the guy going 70 right now, will, in retrospect, be the significantly lesser problem. Sure, the guy going 70 should slow down, but not when there are different speed limits or no speed limits for other drivers on the freeway.
Do you understand that China and India are going to so massively surpass the US and EU in emissions that any action taken by the US and EU will be meaningless, and there is absolutely no incentive at all right now for them to stop, or even slow down the growth? You won't be able to continue blaming only the US for long. There even will be a point in your lifetime where even if all US emissions disappeared completely, total worldwide emissions will be greater than they are today.
Oh, and an "advanced hybrid" from the future is about as efficient as your average European or Japanese sedan from yesterday.
Wrong. This quite a bit more advanced than anything shipping on most Japanese and, especially, European vehicles. Taking even a few minutes with the linked article might clear things up. (All cars I have ever owned for the last ten years have been European vehicles.)
And no, you can't have the freedom to pollute my air, destroy my roads and gridlock my city. Not yours.
I've got news for you. It's not "yours", either. You're not going to take the notion of individual vehicles away in a free society, and I don't exactly understand what you mean by "destroying roads" or "gridlocking your city". And if you don't live in the United States, the only thing remotely valid is perhaps an argument for less emissions, in which case you'll very soon have a much, much, much bigger problem with China and India. You can make all the per capita arguments you want, but in the not too distant future, they'll put emitting a lot more of everything than the US and EU combined.
The arrogance of your assumption that all of these things are only "yours", however, is entertaining.
Toyota is not at all successful because it's "going green". It's successful for a wide variety of other reasons, and had been in various markets against US automakers before the whole hybrid craze (which is not a panacea itself) caught on. And need we be reminded that correlation does not equal causation?
Green is not always "efficient", does not always pay off as quickly as it needs to, and your reasoning that "Green is efficient, so Green is smart business," and the only reason that we're not "going green" is to protect "one particular set of players in an industry," is so wrongheaded and simplistic that it's laughable. Sure, go ahead and believe that big, bad GM and Ford are just after only short term profits and destroying the environment.
This DOES NOT mean we should not strive for efficiency and so on. But efficiency doesn't automatically equal "green", and vice versa. If your simplistic assertion were true, GM and everyone else would be all over it. But sadly, it's not that simple.
No it isn't. Water vapor is the most significant. If you eliminate water vapor, than it is the most significant but not by far.
Ok, yes, but we don't usually consider water vapor when we're talking about greenhouse gasses from human activity.
There are a few other good energy sources. Nuclear for example. US has a problem with storing nuclear waste, but it is political, not practical problem. Can you point me to a working "clean coal plant" or is it another piece of vaporware? It does not reduce the CO2 emissions, at best you will be able to store temporarily some of them underground. And I have heard of even crazier ideas of pumping the CO2 deep in the ocean.
On clean coal, yes, it's a matter of not letting the carbon into the atmosphere. Here are the basic options for clean coal. And there are other ways to make much cleaner, more efficient conventional power plants. Here is an example from my city.
That said, I couldn't possibly be more in agreement with you on the subject of nuclear power. It's a political problem, and a classic "NIMBY" problem. The energy production per mass input and per output of managed waste is something that can't be touched. I wish the US was even more involved with ITER than it is. In fact, I've often wondered what would happen if the US could muster the kind of public and political will it would take to devote the kind of resources we're able to collectively justify for wars - no matter one's opinion of a particular war - but could never justify for, e.g., full-scale fusion research.
Because it contains something a mod doesn't agree with? Giving a serious response to another poster with references for my position is hardly a "troll". And same for noting the truth about the situation no matter who is in office in the US.
What are you trying to illustrate with this post? How selectively picking data can prove any point? Why didn't you post the link to the entire article instead of linking to one of the figures?
Because the factually correct point I was making was served by linking directly to the reference that supports it? (If you're insinuating I was trying to "hide" something, you'd be wrong.)
Although CO2 is 3/4 of green house emissions it is not the most potent greenhouse gas and it isn't even the fastest growing greenhouse gas. That's why the Kyoto protocol includes methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs.
That doesn't change the fact that CO2 is still the most significant greenhouse gas, by far.
This type of argument stopped making sense to me shortly after I left elementary school. It is childish to say "I am doing it because he is doing it.". Besides, China and India do not have the output of greenhouse gases that US has, even if you do not calculate it per capita.
First of all, I didn't say that, but to act as if the US can/should take some kind of artificial emissions high-ground that would significantly negatively impact our economy - and "the economy" isn't just some nebulous concept - while China is allowed unrestricted growth is itself not only "childish", but foolish. And actually, they both 1.) will soon surpass the US in greenhouse gas usage, and 2.) are growing emissions much, much faster per capita. And I've spoken to the general point you raise in this post.
EU has restriction on carbon emissions. It also has a heavy 'ecology' tax on the gasoline and diesel fuels. EU countries (Germany and UK in particular) were phasing out coal as energy source for years, unlike US where coal use has been on the rise. Who the hell gave you points for being informative?!
It's not the EU I'm worried about; it's China. And I find your question/statement, "Who the hell gave you points for being informative?!" considering I didn't talk about coal (which is actually a perfectly valid energy source, per mass and on an emissions basis with clean coal plants, and especially considering that actual, you know, energy production, and not just emissions, is a real concern) or anything you mentioned in that last paragraph, and didn't say anything to contradict anything you said in that paragraph.
Much is made of the fact that China will very soon surpass the CO2 emissions of the US. But our population is less than 25% of theirs, so our emissions are still 4x China's per capita! Moreover, much of China's pollution comes from meeting American demands for cheap steel and manufactured goods - if anybody outside China weilds influence over their polluting ways, it's us and our big credit cards. Let's stop using China as an excuse to not clean up our act.
You're right, of course.
But we don't live in a vacuum, and China is a real economic competitor and a very real and emerging strategic threat to the United States in may ways.
The other issue is that if x amount of emissions are terrible, by that argument, is it really okay to allow China to have more emissions, just because they have lower emissions per capita? Especially when the global environment situation is as dire as some paint it?
So yes, it may be unfair to China, but if the US and EU are going to tighten up their belts with regard to emissions, China should absolutely not be allowed to have this unrestricted emissions growth just because they have more people. China will soon become the biggest user of fossil fuels and the biggest emitter of CO2 - and this is with its very aggressive nuclear power programs.
The other economic factors - i.e., that we purchase Chinese goods - are not anything that can be solved, unless you favor protectionism or isolationism for the US and its economy, which would be unhealthy not to mention impossible. So as trite as it may sound, China's skyrocketing emissions and resource usage are a very real consideration when the US (and EU) decides how it will react.
The good ol' SUV argument. Knew that'd come in somewhere!
1. All of GM's full size trucks and SUVs - GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, and pickup trucks and fleet vehicles - will have the most advanced two-mode full hybrid system to date on nearly any consumer vehicle for MY2008.
2. GM's bread and butter is the full size trucks; it can't compete with Toyota in the car market, and it doesn't have anything to do with "greener" (though increased fuel efficiency is a valid pragmatic argument for many). So GM is going after the market it knows and knows well with more efficient high-technology hybrids. Seriously, the amount of engineering in these things is incredible.
Hybrids are not some panacea; it's all about increasing efficiency for the type of vehicle in question. It's frankly no one's business to judge how big is "too big"; it could be argued that a Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid are "too big" or "more than someone needs". You could even argue that carpooling or small 1- or 2-person vehicles would serve many just fine. Then we start going down the road of taking away personal freedoms and mandating sizes and shapes of vehicles. I suppose in some nations, that would fly.
China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US.
So? They're growing at a much, much faster rate. And the statement you chose - that it would be like saying, "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess," - is telling, but it's actually the opposite of that: it's more like, "We got to industrialization, but we'll allow other developing economies to artificially pollute much more, leaving Western economies at an even greater disadvantage than they are now when competing."
One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.
Oh, they will? Really? Who's going to make China curb emissions? And China hasplentyofproblemsnow.
So yeah, it's not "fair" if China, especially considering the force it is already, isn't held to any standards at all; or, rather, would you find it surprising that there are other factors to consider in the US not simply wanting to happily allow a severe competitive disadvantage, and frames the discussions based on that? This isn't a "Republican" issue or a matter of "misuse" of scientific data. It's an issue of pure economics. Might it be treated more gingerly by more liberal politicians? Sure. But it wouldn't be a lot more than lip service, because no matter who is in office, the economic and other threats from China in particular are very real, and emissions are but small part of that equation.
The submitter, the analysis, and the relevant claims in the first linked article are from the "Pacific Institute". That's fine and doesn't mean anything about it is incorrect, but probably means there is an agenda at work - surprise, just as there's an "agenda" served by the White House, too - and this is also a factual statement:
Pick any year since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997, Mr. Bush should have said, and the U.S. CO2 emission performance is superior to that of all major Kyoto parties, including and most notably Europe (CO2 being the focus of the many pending legislative proposals).
Also, the submission complains that the US metric shown in a positive light - surprising they'd choose something that reflects positively! - is that because only CO2 emissions are considered. Well, CO2 emissions account for nearly three quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.
Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.
So, to counter this, we deliberately invade as many tangentially related countries as possible, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, sacrificing thousands of our soldiers' lives and "accidentally" killing tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners.
We don't intend to kill innocents or civilians (isolated - yes, isolated - incidents where some individual person MAY "intend" to kill a civilian in war aside). It is not condoned nor supported by policy or our population. The US spends literally billions of dollars on weapons systems with no other purpose than ever-increasing the precision so as not to destroy or harm infrastructure or persons not intended.
And if you're talking about Iraq, the "hundreds of thousands" (e.g., 655,000)-type figures simply don't stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny.
We imprison thousands of people and deny them trials.
Huh? Where? Who? At most, there were hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, and dozens in rendition programs, and frankly, I - and thankfully many others - see terrorism and the fights against Islamic radicalism in general as a military issue, not an issue for the courts. Even things like the Military Commissions Act, designed to clarify US response to enemy combatants and their status, DOES NOT apply to US citizens or persons with a valid US immigration status.
So, I kind of don't know what you're talking about here.
We torture some, and send others to third-world countries that we know will torture them for us.
Whatever. We also kill some. Surprising, isn't it? That throughout history, humans kill others who would kill them?
And as to torture, this is torture. Not bright lights and music. Not medical treatment darlings of the American left claim is far better than what 9/11 first responders are receiving. And believe it or not, one can still support an effort while simultaneously not excusing or condoning unacceptable acts that may be intermingled.
The problem is in that delightful world of moral relativism, intent doesn't matter. So if the US kills X number of innocent people in an invasion, even though that is the last thing it wants to do, it's the same as anyone else killing X number of innocent people. And people like Al Qaeda and Wahabbists fighting for their "way of life" are no different that, say, the West fighting for its "way of life". Unfortunately, moral relativism is so misguided that it's almost laughable, and the general values of democracy and freedom massively trump the general values of Panislamic radicalism and its tenets.
We pass laws to make it impossible for any citizen to tell whether government officials are following the law.
Not sure which of the various blog-fodder "laws" you're talking about here, but no, we in fact don't do this, and the fact that government officials have been able to operate in secrecy on issues which are classified is hardly new in this nation or any other. And on the subject of classified material, some entity or entities has to decide what is and isn't classified, else the entire longstanding system of information classification is utterly meaningless.
We empower the military operate within our borders, against our own citizens.
Wrong. If you're talking about the update to the Insurrection Act of 1807, the military has no further power to operate within US borders, "against our own citizens", than it has for 200 years.
The conditions that must be met for domestic use of the military are as follows:
2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the const
And yes, we all understand that there are more cameras, modifications of laws to account for acts of terror, etc., but people simply can't see the application of technology or updates of laws for what it is: for the most part, a genuine, honest attempt by persons within free governments in free societies to protect that system that are no more sinister than the police or the state adopting any other new technology that makes its charge from society easier, or an update to any other law, which we ostensibly value in societies that are based on rule of law.
Are there people with ulterior motives and are people in power looking to stay in power? Sure. Absolutely. But the CCTV systems in the UK aren't a part of some larger plot to create a secret police state and keep "the people" down. I find it humorous that the people who live in what are essentially the freest, richest nations that afford them, in general and on balance, the widest variety of personal freedoms coupled with the rule of law required to maintain order and stability in society for all, seem to think they're living in rapidly degenerating 1984-style police states.
We are certainly not perfect. But to paraphrase Churchill, the general systems of what we loosely call "democracy" are a hell of a lot better than any other systems we've seen tried over the centuries. We have the freest flow of information ever, the ability to communicate and share ideas across the globe to nearly anyone instantly, and the ability to produce alarmist films like this without retribution (save by others who disagree with you, which it is also their right to do).
Sure, be vigilant. Be watchful. But this idea that society-at-large is nothing but consumerist sheep who have been brainwashed into complacency by corporations and government, and only the truly enlightened who see the "truth" that we're in a rapid decline to totalitarianism - and I don't care if it's the US, the UK, or EU in general - are going to save us all is just garbage, and these people really need to get some perspective on things, and perhaps a healthy grip on reality at the same time.
It's not that people are necessarily more "afraid" of dying in a terrorist attack than a car accident. In fact, I think this whole idea that (most) people are "afraid" of terrorists (any more than anything else that can kill them) is pretty much a straw man. People die every day from all manner of accidents and disease. Some preventable, and some not.
The problem, however, is that many kinds of individual accidents can't all be prevented, and thousands of people will still die from them. We can come to terms more easily as humans with someone dying from an accident, like falling off a ladder while cleaning your gutters, no matter how meaningless or even preventable. It's a part of life.
What we don't deal well with is knowing that there is a group of people who - for whatever reason - deliberately plan to kill as many innocent Americans as possible, at the same time causing billions upon billions of dollars of damage to the US economy. The whole idea is to terrorize and paralyze people in the hopes of getting some of your own demands met.
The other issue is that incidents of mass casualty - plane crashes, natural disasters, Virginia Tech, mine collapses, etc. - generally hit humans harder and make the national news. Whether accidents or not, 10 or 50 or 300 people dying at once is an "event" and resonates with people, no matter how unlikely it is in comparison with the things that are (sometimes preventably) killing people every day.
Still another issue is that things like obesity, smoking, etc., that someone is bound to bring up when talking about the "fat and lazy Americans" don't kill a person right away. A big plane crash or bus fire does. In an instant. It's not just "terrorism"; it's mass casualty. The additional problem people have with "terrorism" is that it's another person or group of people plotting harm or death for others. And in the case of non-domestic terrorism, people not even from within our own borders. That's why so many see it as a military, foreign policy, and critical national security issue, not a simple civil or criminal law enforcement issue that we shouldn't take any specific or particular action to stop.
You mean, you think it's possible that someone who has provably committed no crime, who can instantly show that he is not the person with a same/similar name (since all manner of authorities, legal process, background checks, etc. have to deal with this thousands of times daily) would be "rotting in jail" somehow "unable to clear his name"?
That's not to say that no one has ever been wrongly convicted of, say, rape, before, but that is also completely unrelated to MySpace using a broad matching process to try to purge "obvious" sex offender profiles using the authoritative lists. MySpace does not ADD to the lists. MySpace's process does not somehow magically cause new people to be identified as sex offenders, or to be arrested. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Because your hypothetical person is provably not a sex offender, and hasn't been convicted of a crime that classifies him as a sex offender.
MySpace doesn't get to anoint people as sex offenders or create criminal records out of thin air. They are using the authoritative lists that already exist and are maintained by state governments and other agencies to attempt to match against its own userbase, in what is clearly (and most likely intentionally) an overly broad fashion. Because MySpace's matching mechanism improperly defines someone as a sex offender does not make them one in any sense, by any metric.
So, yes, he would have escaped "the witchhunt", other than having his MySpace profile deleted, because he won't be on any sex offender lists, isn't the person that he "matches", and hasn't himself been convicted of any crime. What is so difficult to understand about this? I summed it up here as well.
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. But it is extremely easy to verify whether someone has ever been convicted of a crime which classifies them as a registered sex offender, in any state. Yes, yes, what if Colorado thinks, hmm, maybe we missed this person, and attempts to follow up with them, etc. But considering all registered sex offender lists are public, why would a "vigilante group" (on the extreme off chance that could happen) use the MySpace list of deleted profiles, instead of the real lists which are maintained by the states which practically give you a map to each person's house?
Slashdot Mirror
...as noted in the article but not in the summary, the "client to beat" is the excellent free, open source, GPL-licensed, and highly customizable Adium (more info).
(The summary does mention the other five of the six clients reviewed in the article.)
This is often not a problem in institutional settings.
For example, our Microsoft Enterprise Volume License Agreement covers Windows XP, Windows Vista Enterprise, Office XP, and Office 2007 usage on all institutionally owned systems, including Apple equipment, and including in virtualization.
And, we have our own support mechanisms for Windows.
Apple doesn't want to sell or support Windows, so for individual buyers, what you're saying may be more relevant. But for institutional/enterprise/government/education buyers, they already likely have many options for access to Microsoft software and operating systems other than simply full-price retail.
Departmental buyers here can simply buy a Mac, and get Windows and Office on our EVLA for basically free (just the cost of media), all completely legal and covered.
The fact that a Mac comes with everything you need to edit movies and photos and turn the result into DVDs distinguishes it from every other computer, and hence is noteworthy.
Yes. And that's fine.
The fact that it can run Windows does not.
The fact that a *Mac* easily/natively/seamlessly runs Windows doesn't "distinguish" it from other computers, and that's exactly the point. And it does distinguish it from every other Mac for the over-two-decades before Intel-based Macs started shipping (horridly slow emulation aside, no matter how well it was done).
And as I said elsewhere, the fact that Macs can now run Windows is the single biggest reason people are buying Macs in many markets, especially education, research, and government, and there are still many people who don't understand that, Yes, Macs Really Can Run Windows.
It was at least worth a passing sentence in the article.
But saying that the laptop comes with Mac OS X, Safari, and iLife is important?
This is the single biggest factor in new Mac purchases at my institution, and many other settings.
Whether it comes with iDVD and GarageBand and iCal is not in the least.
And many, many people still don't fully understand that, yes, it really, really can run Windows. And yes, your Windows app will really, really work. Yes, even that one. Yes, really.
Wouldn't you agree that warrants at least a sentence alongside all the other drivel in the article?
How come they don't mention they come with iLife?
The article does mention that.
"the notebooks come with [...] iLife '06. iLife '06 includes Apple's next-generation digital lifestyle applications: iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, GarageBand and iWeb."
How come they don't mention the OS has a *nix underbelly?
Because that's not relevant to the much, much larger number and percentage of people who might have casually considered Mac OS X and Apple hardware, might not yet understand these things can easily run Windows or any other x86 OS. Yes: people who might have at times considered a switch might not understand one of the most aspects of the Intel-based Macs: not having to give up the applications you may still need on Windows, and finally being able to do it in a practical, usable way.
How come they don't mention that Macs plug into the wall?
They actually do. Twice.
"All models include [...] Apple's MagSafe power adapter [...]"
"[...] the MagSafe Power Adapter [...]"
Perhaps Apple itself wants to position its hardware away from Windows and being "PC-like."
Uh, this isn't from "Apple". It's from a tech publication.
Which is the point.
Perhaps it's not relevant to the discussion regarding a simple hardware revision.
By that standard, nearly everything that is actually mentioned in the article is even less relevant.
Perhaps that comment is just a desire to see any Apple news be a commercial.
The fact that you even say that proves my point that the fact that Intel-based Macs can run Windows is kind of an important element in the decision of many purchasers. In fact, mentioning that it has the capability to easily run Windows makes it less of an Apple "commercial", by all of the previous wildly contradictory comments you made.
If you're going to troll, at least do a decent job of it, or at a minimum RTFA, and try to hide your jealousy a little while you're at it.
Terrible. F.
Argh.
I even had a sentence in my post about the fact that the only thing you could even say this thing was missing for a general purpose laptop was a physical right mouse button on the laptop itself, and then deleted it, thinking we were beyond constantly carping about that.
I must be new here!
Apple didn't "surrender" to Greenpeace.
Apple simply issued a statement about its product environmental plans, among other things.
Numerous other vendors were "greener" by Greenpeace standards because they had a public "environmental plan", or even a "plan to have a plan", whereas Apple was silent on futures as it relates to future products, as it always is.
Perhaps Jobs thought it pragmatic to offer its plan publicly so that it would stop getting hammered by Greenpeace as having one of the worst environmental commitments in the industry, when in reality it has one of the best (sure, sure, cue the "but so-and-so is better/first/whatever than Apple is such-and-such category" comments). And besides, I thought it was actions, not lip service about possible future directions, that actually mattered?
But the bottom line is Apple didn't "surrender"; it just published what its already-existing environmental plans were. If you call that a "surrender", then, hey, wave the white flag, Apple.
...a link to the actual MacBook Pro web page and specifications, since that's what people here probably care about, as opposed to a "TechNewsWorld" article being the only thing linked in the summary?
Also, while Apple folks and other tech-savvy folks may know the Intel-based Macs run Windows, why does the news article not even mention that? For many people even considering buying a Mac, the fact that a laptop like this can easily run Windows natively or seamlessly alongside Mac OS X with packages like Parallels Desktop at least bears repeating.
The next time you get pulled over for doing 70 in a 55 mph zone, be sure to tell the cop, "Hey, that guy on the on-ramp doing 35 is accelerating much harder than I am! Why don't you pull him over?"
If you want to make an irrelevant analogy and miss the point, fine, let's do it:
Because assuming the guy on the on-ramp keeps his acceleration pace, if the cop had waited about 30 seconds longer, he'd find that he'll be doing 130 in a 55, so the focus on the guy going 70 right now, will, in retrospect, be the significantly lesser problem. Sure, the guy going 70 should slow down, but not when there are different speed limits or no speed limits for other drivers on the freeway.
Do you understand that China and India are going to so massively surpass the US and EU in emissions that any action taken by the US and EU will be meaningless, and there is absolutely no incentive at all right now for them to stop, or even slow down the growth? You won't be able to continue blaming only the US for long. There even will be a point in your lifetime where even if all US emissions disappeared completely, total worldwide emissions will be greater than they are today.
Oh, and an "advanced hybrid" from the future is about as efficient as your average European or Japanese sedan from yesterday.
Wrong. This quite a bit more advanced than anything shipping on most Japanese and, especially, European vehicles. Taking even a few minutes with the linked article might clear things up. (All cars I have ever owned for the last ten years have been European vehicles.)
And no, you can't have the freedom to pollute my air, destroy my roads and gridlock my city. Not yours.
I've got news for you. It's not "yours", either. You're not going to take the notion of individual vehicles away in a free society, and I don't exactly understand what you mean by "destroying roads" or "gridlocking your city". And if you don't live in the United States, the only thing remotely valid is perhaps an argument for less emissions, in which case you'll very soon have a much, much, much bigger problem with China and India. You can make all the per capita arguments you want, but in the not too distant future, they'll put emitting a lot more of everything than the US and EU combined.
The arrogance of your assumption that all of these things are only "yours", however, is entertaining.
Toyota is not at all successful because it's "going green". It's successful for a wide variety of other reasons, and had been in various markets against US automakers before the whole hybrid craze (which is not a panacea itself) caught on. And need we be reminded that correlation does not equal causation?
And if you want to ignore what is one of the most advanced hybrid systems being rolled out to date, fine.
Green is not always "efficient", does not always pay off as quickly as it needs to, and your reasoning that "Green is efficient, so Green is smart business," and the only reason that we're not "going green" is to protect "one particular set of players in an industry," is so wrongheaded and simplistic that it's laughable. Sure, go ahead and believe that big, bad GM and Ford are just after only short term profits and destroying the environment.
This DOES NOT mean we should not strive for efficiency and so on. But efficiency doesn't automatically equal "green", and vice versa. If your simplistic assertion were true, GM and everyone else would be all over it. But sadly, it's not that simple.
No it isn't. Water vapor is the most significant. If you eliminate water vapor, than it is the most significant but not by far.
Ok, yes, but we don't usually consider water vapor when we're talking about greenhouse gasses from human activity.
There are a few other good energy sources. Nuclear for example. US has a problem with storing nuclear waste, but it is political, not practical problem. Can you point me to a working "clean coal plant" or is it another piece of vaporware? It does not reduce the CO2 emissions, at best you will be able to store temporarily some of them underground. And I have heard of even crazier ideas of pumping the CO2 deep in the ocean.
On clean coal, yes, it's a matter of not letting the carbon into the atmosphere. Here are the basic options for clean coal. And there are other ways to make much cleaner, more efficient conventional power plants. Here is an example from my city.
That said, I couldn't possibly be more in agreement with you on the subject of nuclear power. It's a political problem, and a classic "NIMBY" problem. The energy production per mass input and per output of managed waste is something that can't be touched. I wish the US was even more involved with ITER than it is. In fact, I've often wondered what would happen if the US could muster the kind of public and political will it would take to devote the kind of resources we're able to collectively justify for wars - no matter one's opinion of a particular war - but could never justify for, e.g., full-scale fusion research.
Because it contains something a mod doesn't agree with? Giving a serious response to another poster with references for my position is hardly a "troll". And same for noting the truth about the situation no matter who is in office in the US.
What are you trying to illustrate with this post? How selectively picking data can prove any point? Why didn't you post the link to the entire article instead of linking to one of the figures?
Because the factually correct point I was making was served by linking directly to the reference that supports it? (If you're insinuating I was trying to "hide" something, you'd be wrong.)
Although CO2 is 3/4 of green house emissions it is not the most potent greenhouse gas and it isn't even the fastest growing greenhouse gas. That's why the Kyoto protocol includes methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs.
That doesn't change the fact that CO2 is still the most significant greenhouse gas, by far.
This type of argument stopped making sense to me shortly after I left elementary school. It is childish to say "I am doing it because he is doing it.". Besides, China and India do not have the output of greenhouse gases that US has, even if you do not calculate it per capita.
First of all, I didn't say that, but to act as if the US can/should take some kind of artificial emissions high-ground that would significantly negatively impact our economy - and "the economy" isn't just some nebulous concept - while China is allowed unrestricted growth is itself not only "childish", but foolish. And actually, they both 1.) will soon surpass the US in greenhouse gas usage, and 2.) are growing emissions much, much faster per capita. And I've spoken to the general point you raise in this post.
EU has restriction on carbon emissions. It also has a heavy 'ecology' tax on the gasoline and diesel fuels. EU countries (Germany and UK in particular) were phasing out coal as energy source for years, unlike US where coal use has been on the rise. Who the hell gave you points for being informative?!
It's not the EU I'm worried about; it's China. And I find your question/statement, "Who the hell gave you points for being informative?!" considering I didn't talk about coal (which is actually a perfectly valid energy source, per mass and on an emissions basis with clean coal plants, and especially considering that actual, you know, energy production, and not just emissions, is a real concern) or anything you mentioned in that last paragraph, and didn't say anything to contradict anything you said in that paragraph.
Much is made of the fact that China will very soon surpass the CO2 emissions of the US. But our population is less than 25% of theirs, so our emissions are still 4x China's per capita! Moreover, much of China's pollution comes from meeting American demands for cheap steel and manufactured goods - if anybody outside China weilds influence over their polluting ways, it's us and our big credit cards. Let's stop using China as an excuse to not clean up our act.
You're right, of course.
But we don't live in a vacuum, and China is a real economic competitor and a very real and emerging strategic threat to the United States in may ways.
The other issue is that if x amount of emissions are terrible, by that argument, is it really okay to allow China to have more emissions, just because they have lower emissions per capita? Especially when the global environment situation is as dire as some paint it?
So yes, it may be unfair to China, but if the US and EU are going to tighten up their belts with regard to emissions, China should absolutely not be allowed to have this unrestricted emissions growth just because they have more people. China will soon become the biggest user of fossil fuels and the biggest emitter of CO2 - and this is with its very aggressive nuclear power programs.
The other economic factors - i.e., that we purchase Chinese goods - are not anything that can be solved, unless you favor protectionism or isolationism for the US and its economy, which would be unhealthy not to mention impossible. So as trite as it may sound, China's skyrocketing emissions and resource usage are a very real consideration when the US (and EU) decides how it will react.
*Sigh.*
The good ol' SUV argument. Knew that'd come in somewhere!
1. All of GM's full size trucks and SUVs - GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, and pickup trucks and fleet vehicles - will have the most advanced two-mode full hybrid system to date on nearly any consumer vehicle for MY2008.
2. GM's bread and butter is the full size trucks; it can't compete with Toyota in the car market, and it doesn't have anything to do with "greener" (though increased fuel efficiency is a valid pragmatic argument for many). So GM is going after the market it knows and knows well with more efficient high-technology hybrids. Seriously, the amount of engineering in these things is incredible.
Hybrids are not some panacea; it's all about increasing efficiency for the type of vehicle in question. It's frankly no one's business to judge how big is "too big"; it could be argued that a Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid are "too big" or "more than someone needs". You could even argue that carpooling or small 1- or 2-person vehicles would serve many just fine. Then we start going down the road of taking away personal freedoms and mandating sizes and shapes of vehicles. I suppose in some nations, that would fly.
China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US.
So? They're growing at a much, much faster rate. And the statement you chose - that it would be like saying, "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess," - is telling, but it's actually the opposite of that: it's more like, "We got to industrialization, but we'll allow other developing economies to artificially pollute much more, leaving Western economies at an even greater disadvantage than they are now when competing."
One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.
Oh, they will? Really? Who's going to make China curb emissions? And China has plenty of problems now.
So yeah, it's not "fair" if China, especially considering the force it is already, isn't held to any standards at all; or, rather, would you find it surprising that there are other factors to consider in the US not simply wanting to happily allow a severe competitive disadvantage, and frames the discussions based on that? This isn't a "Republican" issue or a matter of "misuse" of scientific data. It's an issue of pure economics. Might it be treated more gingerly by more liberal politicians? Sure. But it wouldn't be a lot more than lip service, because no matter who is in office, the economic and other threats from China in particular are very real, and emissions are but small part of that equation.
What, California or Colorado?
The submitter and both linked articles are all from the same source...
The submitter, the analysis, and the relevant claims in the first linked article are from the "Pacific Institute". That's fine and doesn't mean anything about it is incorrect, but probably means there is an agenda at work - surprise, just as there's an "agenda" served by the White House, too - and this is also a factual statement:
Pick any year since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997, Mr. Bush should have said, and the U.S. CO2 emission performance is superior to that of all major Kyoto parties, including and most notably Europe (CO2 being the focus of the many pending legislative proposals).
Also, the submission complains that the US metric shown in a positive light - surprising they'd choose something that reflects positively! - is that because only CO2 emissions are considered. Well, CO2 emissions account for nearly three quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.
Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.
Intent matters.
So, to counter this, we deliberately invade as many tangentially related countries as possible, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, sacrificing thousands of our soldiers' lives and "accidentally" killing tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners.
We don't intend to kill innocents or civilians (isolated - yes, isolated - incidents where some individual person MAY "intend" to kill a civilian in war aside). It is not condoned nor supported by policy or our population. The US spends literally billions of dollars on weapons systems with no other purpose than ever-increasing the precision so as not to destroy or harm infrastructure or persons not intended.
And if you're talking about Iraq, the "hundreds of thousands" (e.g., 655,000)-type figures simply don't stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny.
We imprison thousands of people and deny them trials.
Huh? Where? Who? At most, there were hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, and dozens in rendition programs, and frankly, I - and thankfully many others - see terrorism and the fights against Islamic radicalism in general as a military issue, not an issue for the courts. Even things like the Military Commissions Act, designed to clarify US response to enemy combatants and their status, DOES NOT apply to US citizens or persons with a valid US immigration status.
So, I kind of don't know what you're talking about here.
We torture some, and send others to third-world countries that we know will torture them for us.
Whatever. We also kill some. Surprising, isn't it? That throughout history, humans kill others who would kill them?
And as to torture, this is torture. Not bright lights and music. Not medical treatment darlings of the American left claim is far better than what 9/11 first responders are receiving. And believe it or not, one can still support an effort while simultaneously not excusing or condoning unacceptable acts that may be intermingled.
The problem is in that delightful world of moral relativism, intent doesn't matter. So if the US kills X number of innocent people in an invasion, even though that is the last thing it wants to do, it's the same as anyone else killing X number of innocent people. And people like Al Qaeda and Wahabbists fighting for their "way of life" are no different that, say, the West fighting for its "way of life". Unfortunately, moral relativism is so misguided that it's almost laughable, and the general values of democracy and freedom massively trump the general values of Panislamic radicalism and its tenets.
We pass laws to make it impossible for any citizen to tell whether government officials are following the law.
Not sure which of the various blog-fodder "laws" you're talking about here, but no, we in fact don't do this, and the fact that government officials have been able to operate in secrecy on issues which are classified is hardly new in this nation or any other. And on the subject of classified material, some entity or entities has to decide what is and isn't classified, else the entire longstanding system of information classification is utterly meaningless.
We empower the military operate within our borders, against our own citizens.
Wrong. If you're talking about the update to the Insurrection Act of 1807, the military has no further power to operate within US borders, "against our own citizens", than it has for 200 years.
The conditions that must be met for domestic use of the military are as follows:
2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the const
You're absolutely right.
And yes, we all understand that there are more cameras, modifications of laws to account for acts of terror, etc., but people simply can't see the application of technology or updates of laws for what it is: for the most part, a genuine, honest attempt by persons within free governments in free societies to protect that system that are no more sinister than the police or the state adopting any other new technology that makes its charge from society easier, or an update to any other law, which we ostensibly value in societies that are based on rule of law.
Are there people with ulterior motives and are people in power looking to stay in power? Sure. Absolutely. But the CCTV systems in the UK aren't a part of some larger plot to create a secret police state and keep "the people" down. I find it humorous that the people who live in what are essentially the freest, richest nations that afford them, in general and on balance, the widest variety of personal freedoms coupled with the rule of law required to maintain order and stability in society for all, seem to think they're living in rapidly degenerating 1984-style police states.
We are certainly not perfect. But to paraphrase Churchill, the general systems of what we loosely call "democracy" are a hell of a lot better than any other systems we've seen tried over the centuries. We have the freest flow of information ever, the ability to communicate and share ideas across the globe to nearly anyone instantly, and the ability to produce alarmist films like this without retribution (save by others who disagree with you, which it is also their right to do).
Sure, be vigilant. Be watchful. But this idea that society-at-large is nothing but consumerist sheep who have been brainwashed into complacency by corporations and government, and only the truly enlightened who see the "truth" that we're in a rapid decline to totalitarianism - and I don't care if it's the US, the UK, or EU in general - are going to save us all is just garbage, and these people really need to get some perspective on things, and perhaps a healthy grip on reality at the same time.
It's not that people are necessarily more "afraid" of dying in a terrorist attack than a car accident. In fact, I think this whole idea that (most) people are "afraid" of terrorists (any more than anything else that can kill them) is pretty much a straw man. People die every day from all manner of accidents and disease. Some preventable, and some not.
The problem, however, is that many kinds of individual accidents can't all be prevented, and thousands of people will still die from them. We can come to terms more easily as humans with someone dying from an accident, like falling off a ladder while cleaning your gutters, no matter how meaningless or even preventable. It's a part of life.
What we don't deal well with is knowing that there is a group of people who - for whatever reason - deliberately plan to kill as many innocent Americans as possible, at the same time causing billions upon billions of dollars of damage to the US economy. The whole idea is to terrorize and paralyze people in the hopes of getting some of your own demands met.
The other issue is that incidents of mass casualty - plane crashes, natural disasters, Virginia Tech, mine collapses, etc. - generally hit humans harder and make the national news. Whether accidents or not, 10 or 50 or 300 people dying at once is an "event" and resonates with people, no matter how unlikely it is in comparison with the things that are (sometimes preventably) killing people every day.
Still another issue is that things like obesity, smoking, etc., that someone is bound to bring up when talking about the "fat and lazy Americans" don't kill a person right away. A big plane crash or bus fire does. In an instant. It's not just "terrorism"; it's mass casualty. The additional problem people have with "terrorism" is that it's another person or group of people plotting harm or death for others. And in the case of non-domestic terrorism, people not even from within our own borders. That's why so many see it as a military, foreign policy, and critical national security issue, not a simple civil or criminal law enforcement issue that we shouldn't take any specific or particular action to stop.
Um, huh?
You mean, you think it's possible that someone who has provably committed no crime, who can instantly show that he is not the person with a same/similar name (since all manner of authorities, legal process, background checks, etc. have to deal with this thousands of times daily) would be "rotting in jail" somehow "unable to clear his name"?
That's not to say that no one has ever been wrongly convicted of, say, rape, before, but that is also completely unrelated to MySpace using a broad matching process to try to purge "obvious" sex offender profiles using the authoritative lists. MySpace does not ADD to the lists. MySpace's process does not somehow magically cause new people to be identified as sex offenders, or to be arrested. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Think he could've escaped the witchhunt?
Ignoring your hyperbole, yes.
Because your hypothetical person is provably not a sex offender, and hasn't been convicted of a crime that classifies him as a sex offender.
MySpace doesn't get to anoint people as sex offenders or create criminal records out of thin air. They are using the authoritative lists that already exist and are maintained by state governments and other agencies to attempt to match against its own userbase, in what is clearly (and most likely intentionally) an overly broad fashion. Because MySpace's matching mechanism improperly defines someone as a sex offender does not make them one in any sense, by any metric.
So, yes, he would have escaped "the witchhunt", other than having his MySpace profile deleted, because he won't be on any sex offender lists, isn't the person that he "matches", and hasn't himself been convicted of any crime. What is so difficult to understand about this? I summed it up here as well.
I believe I have addressed these issues in the following posts:
d =19326999d =19326455d =19325791
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236709&ci
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236709&ci
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236709&ci
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. But it is extremely easy to verify whether someone has ever been convicted of a crime which classifies them as a registered sex offender, in any state. Yes, yes, what if Colorado thinks, hmm, maybe we missed this person, and attempts to follow up with them, etc. But considering all registered sex offender lists are public, why would a "vigilante group" (on the extreme off chance that could happen) use the MySpace list of deleted profiles, instead of the real lists which are maintained by the states which practically give you a map to each person's house?