That's why I mentioned the use of the sun - if you can generate an efficient H-O bond homolysis using a catalytic process and sunlight then you have a source of hydrogen that you can use. It would address *one* of the issues facing the use of hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles. It's not efficient to crack it using electricity from fossil fuels (who knew, water is a pretty stable molecule!), but that does not mean that it will always be an uneconomic source of hydrogen. To extend the analogy a little, back in the early days of oil use, it was not economically feasible to drill for it in deep water (or even at sea at all), but technology changed that (as did the rise in demand).
It's no different to gasoline - that is *enormously* energy intensive to locate, extract, refine and transport, all for the purposes of burning it in 35% efficient combustion engines - in that respect hydrogen has the same issues, it just has further issues to overcome (i.e., that we can't pump it out of the ground [which will also be the case for oil eventually], and it has low energy density since it likes to exist as a diatomic gas at standard temperate and pressure.
Making it is one part of the puzzle, but nowhere is it talked about that we'll get out more energy than we put in, or even that we'll break even - these are the compromises you make when you want to do things like make self-powered vehicles - you are going to have to deal with (and design for) losses in efficiency as you go further and further from your energy source (every time you transfer energy, or transform its method of storage).
They seem to do just fine with building high performance cars that can get great MPG when not in performance mode. When you're just tootling around, they sip fuel.
It's a little premature to say "never will be" - a hydrogen fuel cell is quite a handy thing to have for generating power, if you can solve the problems of energy density/storage and creation.
There is work being done right now on methods to store hydrogen more effectively so you can get more of the benefits of increased energy density without having to deal with cryogenic issues, and if you can split water relatively cheaply (i.e., not by using grid electricity, but by some other process - potentially catalysis and then using the sun's energy etc) then it might be useful in some circumstances.
Simply burning that hydrogen as a direct replacement for petrol is not really a viable option though, no.
Ah, the "I am right, and no matter what evidence I am presented with, I will tell you it is wrong, however when a single study claims something that fits my worldview, I will hold it up as unshakeable proof!" argument.
Funny, that.
You can cut out the hyperbole, it just makes your position very difficult to take seriously.
There's no way the average Joe in the street is picking Android due to the "general appeal of the OS over iOS" (or vice versa) - they are picking it because of price, primarily. If they are savvy enough to get the really good Android handsets (the ones that are similar in cost to the iPhone) then perhaps that is a factor, but ultimately it's the low prices of many Android handsets - par for par there's not much to choose between an iPhone and a high spec Android, but at the low end, Apple has no cheap phone.
It's a double edged sword - on the one hand, big marketshare growth. On the other hand, lots of really poor Android phones out there (I've used a few and they are really dreadful), so it dilutes the brand and detracts from the excellent Android handsets (which I have also tried out).
The summary was perfectly succinct, and even featured the salient bit of information you were bitching about. You have to do more than skim read it and then immediately leap to the "reply" button though, which is clearly what you did.
That's funny, so neither are any of the Android tablets either then?
The iPad 2 is pretty much the most powerful tablet out there at the moment for the money - not that really has anything much to do with why it sells so well (that would be usability).
You will carefully note I did not say that. Both antennas are good - neither has given me any problems when in use, at any point.
So, from my perspective, the iPhone 3G antenna was excellent, and the iPhone 4 antenna was better than the 3GS one. The only time you could make the iPhone 4 drop a call by attenuating the signal was in areas where the 3G couldn't pick up a signal at all in the first place. In my experience, my iPhone 3G always had signal in marginal places, while my friends with non-Apple phones (often blackberry) could not get signal at all.
Apple did not admit it was a "fuck up", they responded to the massively overhyped trolling with a dose of PR, like any company would do. Of the perhaps 30 or 40 iPhone 4 users I have talked to, 75% of them have had no signal issues at all. The other 25% said "no signal issues, but I'll take the free phone case, thanks Apple!".
Your appraisal of the way you believe other people choose phones (i.e., by not caring about the specs) speaks volumes for how you choose your own purchases.
I bet you were one of the many crowing about the "underpowered" iPad with "no connectivity", and how that would mean it would be a total flop. It's not always about the raw specs of the device.
OS 8.6 was pretty nifty. Did a lot of heavy-hitting work on that on a 9600/300 (non-linear editing) that the PCs of the time just could not cope with.
Also loved that you could turn it on and off with the keyboard - something I miss on my modern day iMac, having to fumble around at the back for the switch.
Funnily enough, the iPhone 4 antenna is *better* than the one in the 3G, so even with this supposed "flaw", it is *still* better than the phone it replaced. It only exhibits the signal drop out (i.e., total loss of signal on attenuation) when it's in a region where the 3GS couldn't even get a signal *at all* in ideal conditions.
Don't let the Apple hate consume you too much, it will chafe your neckbeard.
Well, that's all the Android fanbois would crow about when comparing the iPhone/iPad with the "iPad killers" - CPU specs, GPU and so on, so maybe that *is* how slashdot thinks.
Which individual Android handset has more marketshare than an individual iPhone model?
Colour me unsurprised that a mobile OS used by many manufacturers making all manner of phones (from cheap crappy ones to expensive excellent ones) has a higher marketshare than a single manufacturer.
Although, if that's the sum total of your argument, then it follows that Windows is better than Linux because it has more marketshare, right? It's just that simple.
It was "sat on" by the police, because they had been bought off by News Corporation. The whole thing should have gone off in 2006 when the "isolated incident"/"one rogue journalist" situation happened. The Met collected all the evidence (10,000 pages of notes in 11 garbage bags) and then said "no, nothing to see here!"
It has been rumbling since then - the Guardian in particular kept running it, and it wasn't until the Millie Dowler revelations that it became front page news.
There have also a been a string of stories and court settlements since 2006 for various celebs who suspected phone hacking.
So the thrust of your argument is "bias is expected, and it doesn't matter if we're inconsistent, and you're a "sore loser" if you call us on being biased and hypocritical".
And no data was. The database was local, and used to speed up location services on the phone.
In the ToS it says they may collect non-personal data for their own use, but no one has been able to demonstrate that they were actually doing that.
Regardless of what Apple were or were not doing, a major criticism from the Android fanboy camp was that this was all plaintext, making "tracking your every move" suspicious, and a massive privacy violation issue since anyone could get the data and work out where you were, or build up patterns of movement so they could see when you were most likely to be away from home to rob you etc.
Go look it up - it's all there.
Now, here we have Android phones storing *passwords* in plaintext, and somehow that's "perfectly ok, since the key must be on the device somewhere so it doesn't matter". Mmmm. Double Standard Cream. Delicious on a pie.
To argue anything different would be to argue that Bakersfield, CA is more secure than NYC because they have had no terrorists crash their planes into buildings there.
So, your position is that your opinion is fact, and no amount of arguing will change that.
To all the apple guys out there who tell people that macs are inherently more secure than PCs - shame on you. And if you are a mac user who takes exception to that last sentence, be a flagrant non-conformist and re-read it before you hit the reply button.
Frothing anger whilst you type some variation of "I never do that, how dare you flame ALL mac users" makes you look like a entirely different type of fool than the ones described.
Again, your position here is a pre-emptive ad hominem. You're clearly not interested in discussion, you just wanted to flame Apple.
You cannot start from the position of "I am right, and if you try to say I'm not, you're a clueless fanboy who should be ashamed of holding a different opinion to me" and expect to be taken seriously.
Even with that, the A4 and A5 are not "from scratch" CPUs - they are modified/customised ARM chips rather than all-new, specific Apple CPUs. The OP's original point seems to be that unless you are literally doing what Intel does, or Nvidia or AMD, then you are not a "hardware design" company.
Very few companies are actually designing CPUs from the bare metal up.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I mentioned the use of the sun - if you can generate an efficient H-O bond homolysis using a catalytic process and sunlight then you have a source of hydrogen that you can use. It would address *one* of the issues facing the use of hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles. It's not efficient to crack it using electricity from fossil fuels (who knew, water is a pretty stable molecule!), but that does not mean that it will always be an uneconomic source of hydrogen. To extend the analogy a little, back in the early days of oil use, it was not economically feasible to drill for it in deep water (or even at sea at all), but technology changed that (as did the rise in demand).
It's no different to gasoline - that is *enormously* energy intensive to locate, extract, refine and transport, all for the purposes of burning it in 35% efficient combustion engines - in that respect hydrogen has the same issues, it just has further issues to overcome (i.e., that we can't pump it out of the ground [which will also be the case for oil eventually], and it has low energy density since it likes to exist as a diatomic gas at standard temperate and pressure.
Making it is one part of the puzzle, but nowhere is it talked about that we'll get out more energy than we put in, or even that we'll break even - these are the compromises you make when you want to do things like make self-powered vehicles - you are going to have to deal with (and design for) losses in efficiency as you go further and further from your energy source (every time you transfer energy, or transform its method of storage).
China already has you beaten, by a long chalk. They high higher MPG, and tighter regulations on emissions and fuel economy.
Buy something European.
They seem to do just fine with building high performance cars that can get great MPG when not in performance mode. When you're just tootling around, they sip fuel.
It's a little premature to say "never will be" - a hydrogen fuel cell is quite a handy thing to have for generating power, if you can solve the problems of energy density/storage and creation.
There is work being done right now on methods to store hydrogen more effectively so you can get more of the benefits of increased energy density without having to deal with cryogenic issues, and if you can split water relatively cheaply (i.e., not by using grid electricity, but by some other process - potentially catalysis and then using the sun's energy etc) then it might be useful in some circumstances.
Simply burning that hydrogen as a direct replacement for petrol is not really a viable option though, no.
Ah, the "I am right, and no matter what evidence I am presented with, I will tell you it is wrong, however when a single study claims something that fits my worldview, I will hold it up as unshakeable proof!" argument.
Funny, that.
You can cut out the hyperbole, it just makes your position very difficult to take seriously.
There's no way the average Joe in the street is picking Android due to the "general appeal of the OS over iOS" (or vice versa) - they are picking it because of price, primarily. If they are savvy enough to get the really good Android handsets (the ones that are similar in cost to the iPhone) then perhaps that is a factor, but ultimately it's the low prices of many Android handsets - par for par there's not much to choose between an iPhone and a high spec Android, but at the low end, Apple has no cheap phone.
It's a double edged sword - on the one hand, big marketshare growth. On the other hand, lots of really poor Android phones out there (I've used a few and they are really dreadful), so it dilutes the brand and detracts from the excellent Android handsets (which I have also tried out).
The summary was perfectly succinct, and even featured the salient bit of information you were bitching about. You have to do more than skim read it and then immediately leap to the "reply" button though, which is clearly what you did.
Jesus fucking christ. If it doesn't fit in a twitter post you lazy fucks just don't want to know.
"You mean I have to *read* something to understand it?!"
That's funny, so neither are any of the Android tablets either then?
The iPad 2 is pretty much the most powerful tablet out there at the moment for the money - not that really has anything much to do with why it sells so well (that would be usability).
You will carefully note I did not say that. Both antennas are good - neither has given me any problems when in use, at any point.
So, from my perspective, the iPhone 3G antenna was excellent, and the iPhone 4 antenna was better than the 3GS one. The only time you could make the iPhone 4 drop a call by attenuating the signal was in areas where the 3G couldn't pick up a signal at all in the first place. In my experience, my iPhone 3G always had signal in marginal places, while my friends with non-Apple phones (often blackberry) could not get signal at all.
Apple did not admit it was a "fuck up", they responded to the massively overhyped trolling with a dose of PR, like any company would do. Of the perhaps 30 or 40 iPhone 4 users I have talked to, 75% of them have had no signal issues at all. The other 25% said "no signal issues, but I'll take the free phone case, thanks Apple!".
The only negative reports I saw were on slashdot.
3 million is not even close - Apple shipped about 15 million iPhones last quarter, and has about a 100 million install base.
Yes, yes you did.
Your appraisal of the way you believe other people choose phones (i.e., by not caring about the specs) speaks volumes for how you choose your own purchases.
I bet you were one of the many crowing about the "underpowered" iPad with "no connectivity", and how that would mean it would be a total flop. It's not always about the raw specs of the device.
OS 8.6 was pretty nifty. Did a lot of heavy-hitting work on that on a 9600/300 (non-linear editing) that the PCs of the time just could not cope with.
Also loved that you could turn it on and off with the keyboard - something I miss on my modern day iMac, having to fumble around at the back for the switch.
Funnily enough, the iPhone 4 antenna is *better* than the one in the 3G, so even with this supposed "flaw", it is *still* better than the phone it replaced. It only exhibits the signal drop out (i.e., total loss of signal on attenuation) when it's in a region where the 3GS couldn't even get a signal *at all* in ideal conditions.
Don't let the Apple hate consume you too much, it will chafe your neckbeard.
Well, that's all the Android fanbois would crow about when comparing the iPhone/iPad with the "iPad killers" - CPU specs, GPU and so on, so maybe that *is* how slashdot thinks.
Which individual Android handset has more marketshare than an individual iPhone model?
Colour me unsurprised that a mobile OS used by many manufacturers making all manner of phones (from cheap crappy ones to expensive excellent ones) has a higher marketshare than a single manufacturer.
Although, if that's the sum total of your argument, then it follows that Windows is better than Linux because it has more marketshare, right? It's just that simple.
So you think slashdot is *pro* Apple?
hahahahaha.
Cute.
It was "sat on" by the police, because they had been bought off by News Corporation. The whole thing should have gone off in 2006 when the "isolated incident"/"one rogue journalist" situation happened. The Met collected all the evidence (10,000 pages of notes in 11 garbage bags) and then said "no, nothing to see here!"
It has been rumbling since then - the Guardian in particular kept running it, and it wasn't until the Millie Dowler revelations that it became front page news.
There have also a been a string of stories and court settlements since 2006 for various celebs who suspected phone hacking.
So the thrust of your argument is "bias is expected, and it doesn't matter if we're inconsistent, and you're a "sore loser" if you call us on being biased and hypocritical".
Gotcha.
And no data was. The database was local, and used to speed up location services on the phone.
In the ToS it says they may collect non-personal data for their own use, but no one has been able to demonstrate that they were actually doing that.
Regardless of what Apple were or were not doing, a major criticism from the Android fanboy camp was that this was all plaintext, making "tracking your every move" suspicious, and a massive privacy violation issue since anyone could get the data and work out where you were, or build up patterns of movement so they could see when you were most likely to be away from home to rob you etc.
Go look it up - it's all there.
Now, here we have Android phones storing *passwords* in plaintext, and somehow that's "perfectly ok, since the key must be on the device somewhere so it doesn't matter". Mmmm. Double Standard Cream. Delicious on a pie.
No, you really aren't interested in discussion:
To argue anything different would be to argue that Bakersfield, CA is more secure than NYC because they have had no terrorists crash their planes into buildings there.
So, your position is that your opinion is fact, and no amount of arguing will change that.
To all the apple guys out there who tell people that macs are inherently more secure than PCs - shame on you. And if you are a mac user who takes exception to that last sentence, be a flagrant non-conformist and re-read it before you hit the reply button.
Frothing anger whilst you type some variation of "I never do that, how dare you flame ALL mac users" makes you look like a entirely different type of fool than the ones described.
Again, your position here is a pre-emptive ad hominem. You're clearly not interested in discussion, you just wanted to flame Apple.
You cannot start from the position of "I am right, and if you try to say I'm not, you're a clueless fanboy who should be ashamed of holding a different opinion to me" and expect to be taken seriously.
Even with that, the A4 and A5 are not "from scratch" CPUs - they are modified/customised ARM chips rather than all-new, specific Apple CPUs. The OP's original point seems to be that unless you are literally doing what Intel does, or Nvidia or AMD, then you are not a "hardware design" company.
Very few companies are actually designing CPUs from the bare metal up.
No, I just posted something of equal value to your post. You certainly aren't interested in discussion but it's clear you wanted some interaction.
Cool story bro.
I almost believed it.
Cool story bro.