It's time for the world to face the fact that nuclear energy (and hopefully fusion in the "next 20 years") is the only practical way to truly reduce CO2 emissions and solve pollution problems.
Except that it's not true. It is much more practical to simply reduce the amount of energy we consume, drive less, fly less, etc. Use more energy-efficient devices.
wind plants take lots of land and are an eyesore,
A bit of land and an "eyesore"? That's not very much of a downside. nuclear plants and coal plants are also an eyesore, and take plenty of land when you take mining and waste disposal into account.
Nuclear plants may have some miniscule risks, but when properly managed, they are by far the best solution.
Sorry, the risks are not miniscule. You have to dispose of the waste, which nobody has really dealt with properly yet. plus you have to mine the uranium - which introduces a whole host of other concerns - such as desecration of indigenous land in Australia Then there are issues of nuclear weapons proliferation. Having more nuclear material about could result in the destruction of a city, or worse.
The problem with nuclear energy (dealing with the waste included) is entirely political, not technical.
No. Nuclear power has many technical difficulties. It is not a magic bullet.
the iPod is "designed to fail"? What a load of crap! Lithium batteries are much more efficient than other types of batteries, and allow the small form factor. Plus they are much more environmentally friendly. Who want to be constantly replacing batteries, or have a huge player, anyway? The batteries can last for years, it's hardly something that fails quickly in most cases. If it fails under warranty, it gets replaced for free.
Nothing to do with fanboyism - I don't even own an iPod. And the battery is not an issue for any but a tiny, irrelevant portion of the population.
Apple begins an ad blitz for the iPod that has essentially no content but plenty of playing off of hipness, Apple sells tons of the things.
So, why did it sell so well before Apple did any significant advertising of it?
it isn't much of a stretch to say that the bulk of iPod owners purchased the product because it had a hip image.
Actually, it is. People don't buy music players just to be hip. They buy them to... you know... play music. I think all this "iPod only sells because it is hip" is either just shortsightedness, or jealousy at the success of the iPod. Do people buy Windows because it's hip? I don't think so.
I have yet to find anybody who bought an iPod as a status symbol. Yet i know plenty who use it to take music to school, or to play at parties. Most people have their iPods in their pockets, handbags or cases - so they aren't even visible as a status symbol. If it were about being hip, you'd think they would display them to show them off.
I'm not saying that you, personally, were somehow suckered. But it's absurd to say that buzz-generating ad campaigns don't work.
Of course advertising helps people become aware of a product. That doesn't mean that people would have bought it just because of the advertising, if the product was of no use to them.
Most people have no idea what Firewire or DRM or Vorbis or anything in that vein means. But they know that the iPod is shiny and more hip than a CD player.
CD player? Jeez. It's a lot more functional and compact than a CD player. people haven't bought CD players for years.
But to claim that the bulk of iPod sales isn't driven by a hip image is just silly. It's a luxury item with a fancy exterior.
Why is that so silly? It may be a luxury item, but no more so than a DVD player. Do people buy those because it's trendy - or because they want to watch movies? And what's so "fancy" about it? It's very minimalistic - the opposite of "fancy."
You see - to your average joe, an mp3 player is an ipod - they no more understand the difference between an ipod and *generic mp3player* then they do the difference between kleenex and tissues.
Frankly, that's a load of horsecrap. The average Joe can certainly tell the difference, and knows which company makes it. How many "average joes" did you interview to determine they don't know the difference?
I think every girl I've ever dated has said 'diamonds are stupid', but then they'd go ballastic with envy when someone they know got a giant diamond engagement ring.
It's whether sentiment is now turning to say the phenomenon is getting a little tacky. Imho, it is and in this sense the iPod is no different from any other fashion accessory.
Huh? You were the one who said that fashion and lifestyle people were the ones responsible for the initial popularity of the iPod. But they were not. popularity was driven by early adopters - mostly Mac geeks, not fashion people.
Also, the iPod is a music player, not a fashion accessory. Fashion accessories are things like earrings or shoes. Maybe the iPod is getting tacky - but that does not mean it is just a fashion accessory, or that fashion mavens had anything to do with the iPod's success. I don't kinow anybody who bought the iPod for any other reason than to play music. When it was on the rise, it was reviewed on computer and digital media sites, not Vogue magazine.
They will be written by lifestyle and fashion people, the same people who drove the adoption of the iPod in the first place among those who could afford one.
That's absolute nonsense. Lifestyle and fashion people were never the ones behind the success of the iPod. They were popular before any fashion people even got wind of it. the main reason that people buy iPods is that they work very well, and are a convenient way of managing music - not because they are fashionable. It's all about the music and seamless integration.
One in a hundred, or probably less. Far more common (probably by an order of magnitude) is the woman who would refuse to marry a man who didn't get them a diamond ring of acceptable size.
Who would want to go out with such a superficial woman? If the women you are meeting are trained "before puberty" to want diamonds, maybe you should look for a better class of woman? Someone who has such shit ingrained is not worth marrying/ Do you want to marry a psycho?
but then a ringtone of the same song, a 15 second or so clip, costs 3 dollars to download from the service provider of the phone.
That's because most ringtone purchases are charged to the phone bill. So, some kid hears some new ringtone - and he doesn't even have to steal the parents' credit card - just dial this number, charge it to the phone account.
During 2006, it's quite likely we'll see an increasing number of articles saying the iPod thing is over.
You mean, like we have every single year since the iPod was released? Who believes a word of articles written by industry pundits? they have an appalling track record. This is like saying that because everybody owns a car, the car days are over.
Now, you have to give your lady love a diamond ring -- no alternatives.
I don't think so. Many women specifically don't want diamonds, and would be offended by buying a DeBeers product, because of the history of slave labor and exploitation. Plus, many other gems are more attractive and appealing than a diamond. Some women would think a diamond was such an unoriginal cliche as to be not worthy of respect.
While you have some good points about accessories - i don't believe the iPod has reached anywhere near market saturation. Even though it has 70%+ of the MP3 player market, most people still don't own MP3 players. Those that don't will most likely choose an iPod when they do get one. I believe that iPod sales are still increasing. Just look at the rise of Windows, for example. Sales kept climbing, even as the market got saturated and people thought it couldn't go any further.
Dude, think about it. it's a portable computer. One often used by musicians and video artists in the field. By "in the field" this often means backstage, where it is dark. It's this feature that is so useful that caused the interest, not the fact that Apple did it. Plenty of people who aren't even Mac fans have chosen the Powerbook mainly for this feature.
The problem is that pre-announcement only works for really hot products that people have a strong demand for already - like the Playstation 3 or X-Box. With this product, people don't have a burning desire for a new search engine. So it ends up being counter-productive.
People get sick of the talk, and are bored with the product before it is released. Or they buy the hype - and then get disappointed when the actual product arrives.
I think Apple's approach is better - surprise people with a product you have been working on in secret, release when ready. Then you don't get failed anticipation - and it creates real buzz and news at the time the product is actually announced/available.
..now this guy is not respecting a guy who dont mind about english grammer (coz he's not english)....
I can understand if you aren't a native English speaker that your writing would not be perfect, and you would have difficulty. But you seem to be saying you don't care about the grammar and spelling of the English language. Shouldn't you at least attempt to learn? Not only would it broaden your employability and knowledge, but it would be more respectful to people you are speaking to. I would not learn another language and then "not care" about their language conventions. That's insulting to speakers of that language, and I could accidentally offend someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it's not true. It is much more practical to simply reduce the amount of energy we consume, drive less, fly less, etc. Use more energy-efficient devices.
wind plants take lots of land and are an eyesore,
A bit of land and an "eyesore"? That's not very much of a downside. nuclear plants and coal plants are also an eyesore, and take plenty of land when you take mining and waste disposal into account.
Nuclear plants may have some miniscule risks, but when properly managed, they are by far the best solution.
Sorry, the risks are not miniscule. You have to dispose of the waste, which nobody has really dealt with properly yet. plus you have to mine the uranium - which introduces a whole host of other concerns - such as desecration of indigenous land in Australia Then there are issues of nuclear weapons proliferation. Having more nuclear material about could result in the destruction of a city, or worse.
The problem with nuclear energy (dealing with the waste included) is entirely political, not technical.
No. Nuclear power has many technical difficulties. It is not a magic bullet.
1. The battery is replaceable.
2. Battery doors are highly prone to failure, and can allow gunk inside the iPod.
It's nice to know that Jon Stewart is such a fan of bandwidth. Is he doing this so we can transmit more Bush jokes?
Nothing to do with fanboyism - I don't even own an iPod. And the battery is not an issue for any but a tiny, irrelevant portion of the population.
So, why did it sell so well before Apple did any significant advertising of it?
it isn't much of a stretch to say that the bulk of iPod owners purchased the product because it had a hip image.
Actually, it is. People don't buy music players just to be hip. They buy them to ... you know ... play music. I think all this "iPod only sells because it is hip" is either just shortsightedness, or jealousy at the success of the iPod. Do people buy Windows because it's hip? I don't think so.
I have yet to find anybody who bought an iPod as a status symbol. Yet i know plenty who use it to take music to school, or to play at parties. Most people have their iPods in their pockets, handbags or cases - so they aren't even visible as a status symbol. If it were about being hip, you'd think they would display them to show them off.
I'm not saying that you, personally, were somehow suckered. But it's absurd to say that buzz-generating ad campaigns don't work.
Of course advertising helps people become aware of a product. That doesn't mean that people would have bought it just because of the advertising, if the product was of no use to them.
Most people have no idea what Firewire or DRM or Vorbis or anything in that vein means. But they know that the iPod is shiny and more hip than a CD player.
CD player? Jeez. It's a lot more functional and compact than a CD player. people haven't bought CD players for years.
But to claim that the bulk of iPod sales isn't driven by a hip image is just silly. It's a luxury item with a fancy exterior.
Why is that so silly? It may be a luxury item, but no more so than a DVD player. Do people buy those because it's trendy - or because they want to watch movies? And what's so "fancy" about it? It's very minimalistic - the opposite of "fancy."
the 3.5mm cable doesn't give you things like charging, remote controls on the steering wheel and other features of the iPod dock connector.
Frankly, that's a load of horsecrap. The average Joe can certainly tell the difference, and knows which company makes it. How many "average joes" did you interview to determine they don't know the difference?
I think every girl I've ever dated has said 'diamonds are stupid', but then they'd go ballastic with envy when someone they know got a giant diamond engagement ring.
Like I said, don't date psychos.
Huh? You were the one who said that fashion and lifestyle people were the ones responsible for the initial popularity of the iPod. But they were not. popularity was driven by early adopters - mostly Mac geeks, not fashion people.
Also, the iPod is a music player, not a fashion accessory. Fashion accessories are things like earrings or shoes. Maybe the iPod is getting tacky - but that does not mean it is just a fashion accessory, or that fashion mavens had anything to do with the iPod's success. I don't kinow anybody who bought the iPod for any other reason than to play music. When it was on the rise, it was reviewed on computer and digital media sites, not Vogue magazine.
That's absolute nonsense. Lifestyle and fashion people were never the ones behind the success of the iPod. They were popular before any fashion people even got wind of it. the main reason that people buy iPods is that they work very well, and are a convenient way of managing music - not because they are fashionable. It's all about the music and seamless integration.
Who would want to go out with such a superficial woman? If the women you are meeting are trained "before puberty" to want diamonds, maybe you should look for a better class of woman? Someone who has such shit ingrained is not worth marrying/ Do you want to marry a psycho?
I think you need to get out more if watching a live feed is the coolest thing you have ever seen. Aren't you supposed to be overly cynical?
That's because most ringtone purchases are charged to the phone bill. So, some kid hears some new ringtone - and he doesn't even have to steal the parents' credit card - just dial this number, charge it to the phone account.
Why is running Photoshop not "real work"? And you do realize that Macs are huge in scientific computing (solving real problems) don't you?
You mean, like we have every single year since the iPod was released? Who believes a word of articles written by industry pundits? they have an appalling track record. This is like saying that because everybody owns a car, the car days are over.
I don't think so. Many women specifically don't want diamonds, and would be offended by buying a DeBeers product, because of the history of slave labor and exploitation. Plus, many other gems are more attractive and appealing than a diamond. Some women would think a diamond was such an unoriginal cliche as to be not worthy of respect.
While you have some good points about accessories - i don't believe the iPod has reached anywhere near market saturation. Even though it has 70%+ of the MP3 player market, most people still don't own MP3 players. Those that don't will most likely choose an iPod when they do get one. I believe that iPod sales are still increasing. Just look at the rise of Windows, for example. Sales kept climbing, even as the market got saturated and people thought it couldn't go any further.
Just string a long piece of wire to a tree, and ground it properly.
Dude, think about it. it's a portable computer. One often used by musicians and video artists in the field. By "in the field" this often means backstage, where it is dark. It's this feature that is so useful that caused the interest, not the fact that Apple did it. Plenty of people who aren't even Mac fans have chosen the Powerbook mainly for this feature.
People get sick of the talk, and are bored with the product before it is released. Or they buy the hype - and then get disappointed when the actual product arrives.
I think Apple's approach is better - surprise people with a product you have been working on in secret, release when ready. Then you don't get failed anticipation - and it creates real buzz and news at the time the product is actually announced/available.
Duke Nukem Forever, anyone?
How about a surfboard?
I can understand if you aren't a native English speaker that your writing would not be perfect, and you would have difficulty. But you seem to be saying you don't care about the grammar and spelling of the English language. Shouldn't you at least attempt to learn? Not only would it broaden your employability and knowledge, but it would be more respectful to people you are speaking to. I would not learn another language and then "not care" about their language conventions. That's insulting to speakers of that language, and I could accidentally offend someone.
It's insulting to both the listener and speaker.
Charlton Heston?
No, BIODIESEL IS SOYLENT GREEN! We've gotta stop them somehow!