We have quite a few; first, its supposed to reduce it by reducing daily demand, and its supposed to do it generally across the nation. You don't need multiple years of data to get a decent idea of what is going on with that; you can look at the data from one month daily and by region, and see to what degree it appears to be true. Or you could look at the overall average over all regions and days, and see that the number is not different that what would have been expected without the change.
Of course, one might posit that there is some reason to expect that this month was systematically atypical in a way which would distort the results, but those making that claim ought to have something to point to to justify it.
Can you prove to me that the power we saved wasnt offset by the power used to deal with an unseasonably warm spring?
First, "unseasonably warm spring" is somewhat irrelevant (and not established) as its not even 2 weeks into the 13 weeks of Spring, yet, and a significant portion of the new DST time is in winter.
Secondly, even considering the right time period, where is the evidence that an unseasonably warm March increases energy demand? Certainly, in the hottest areas it may increase cooling demand, but in much of the country a warm late-winter-to-early-spring is going to save energy by reducing cooling demand.
There is a difference between claims made by a products fannish consumers and claims made in marketing campaigns by for-profit companies designed to influence purchase decisions in which those companies (either directly or through strategic business relationships) have economic interests.
Namely, the former may be deceptive, but its going to be, as a rule, any kind of actionable deceptive marketing.
They even provide a link to which features are limited. C'mon, this is frivolous lawsuit.
The website is not the part of the marketing campaign that is the subject of the lawsuit. So, whether the website which mentions the features provides such a link is not particularly relevant to the question, unless one is arguing that any person purchasing a "Windows Vista Capable" PC based on Microsoft's other marketing of Vista can reasonably be expected to have been exposed to the Windows Vista website (and, even if so, of course, only if those current distinctions were present in the prerelease version of the website when those computers were purchased.)
That would make perfect sense for them to show Aero. What company doesn't showcase their high-end products instead of their low-end ones?
Sure, most companies don't showcase their low-end products. OTOH, when the high-end product is showcased as representing the brand-name it shares with the low-end product, and people are sold some third product on the basis of capacity to use a product identified with that shared brand name, when it cannot use the features that the seller has worked hard to identify with the shared brand name, the marketing is in fact deceptive. Whether it is also so in law may vary by other considerations, but, note that adds for particular brands of cars where there highlighted version has different options than the base that advertise selling points (such as price) applicable to the base model tend also to include reference to the higher price of the version "as shown". There is a reason for that.
For me, I'd prefer it's this way all year long but I don't have kids that ride a school bus (isn't that the main reason they claim we do this in the first place?)
The reason we do it is that people are more likely to shop if they get off work and it is still light out, and thus it is a way to subsidize retail and related industries (the theoretical energy savings are based on the assumption that businesses won't change their schedule and will consume constant power, but the people staying out shopping won't go home and turn on their home appliances.)
Windows Vista may be a worthless suite, but what I think you mean to say is that the legal action appears to be a worthless suit.
However, I'm not convinced by your argument there. While people may have been able to get a Microsoft operating system called "Vista" for a "Vista capable" PC, they could not get the features Microsoft was advertising as the selling points of Vista before it was released (and, therefore, at the time they were buying the "Vista capable" PCs). Whether the misleading effects of those combinations of marketing claims made by Microsoft (not just the "Vista Capable" logo alone, but it in combination with the claims made for Vista) was deceptive under the law is, I think, less clear than you would suggest.
Is this really the first real success for that kind of "AI"? I'd rather thought that image classifiers based on neural networks and various other types of classifying techniques had been around for quite some time, and even used in realtime applications like self-driving cars that responded to road signs.
Electric Vehicles in the form factor of a car just aren't going to happen in our lifetime, from the looks of things.
Plug-in hybrids are the most likely, which are, really, simply electric vehicles when taking short trips, and some other fuel (usually gasoline now, but there is no reason they have to be) vehicles when taking long trips. Since, at least in the US, most auto trips are short and most people are resistant to pure electrics because they want to retain the capacity to make the less-frequent long trips in their personal vehicle, plug-in hybrids have the potential get you most of the benefits of electric vehicles (since, in most trips, they are electric vehicles) while overcoming the main obstacle to adoption.
(Of course, electric vehicles in that form factor have happened in our lifetime, for the brief while where California actually internalized the externalized benefits of electric vehicles; of course, political pressure from big money groups got that ended right quick. OTOH, the increasing concern about global warming makes it more likely that internalize the external benefits of clean vehicles—or, equivalently, internalizing the external costs of dirty ones—will be more durably politically viable, so you may be overly pessimistic about the potential for all-electric vehicles to make a comeback.)
Batteries have an issue of a pitifully short life(God help you if you run out of batteries and don't get around to recharging in time, there's a few hundred kilograms of toxic material to dispose of and a few dozen thousands of dollars to replace them), and an energy density not high enough to give any sort of range (in an EV you're lucky if you can fit about a gallon of gas worth of electrical energy onboard, with similar range).
The major-manufacturer production electric cars released in the 1990s before California dismantled the ZEV mandate that had NiMH batteries rather than lead acid had ranges in excess of 100 miles per charge (including the the Honda EV plus, Toyota RAV4 EV, the later version of GM EV1.) Which is certainly more than you'd get with similar vehicles with 1 gallon of gas if powered by a traditional gasoline engine, and even more (though not by as much) than, say, the hybrid prototypes based on the EV1 got per gallon. So, I'd say that you are significantly understating by saying that 1 gallon equivalent is "lucky" in an EV1, when the few production EVs have done better.
The best bet, from where I'm standing, is to try to get new energy-dense liquid fuels based on plants which doesn't requre any strange composites or anything, just natural processes helped along a bit, because then you can run those flammable liquids in existing cars with little or no alteration.
Sure, that would be ideal, if it was feasible (actually, it is for replacing diesel fuel—biodiesels that work as "drop-in" replacements exist now; gasoline is more of a challenge, except for vehicles that were engineered to take a wide range of fuels, which are a small fraction of the usually-gasoline-powered vehicles on the market.)
(Think about the amount of energy that goes into creating steel, shaping steel, and making the vehicles we drive. Imagine that amount of energy -- currently provided by some of the lowest quality fossil fuels -- applied to every vehicle in North America, Oceana, and Europe, and that happening RIGHT NOW because gas is going to disappear overnight)
Why? Gas isn't going to disappear overnight if whatever transition we begin begins soon. Yeah, the quicker we get rid of it the better, but there are all kinds of ways to start attacking the problem now through more efficient gas-powered vehicles, new vehicles that use alternative fuels, etc. We don't have to replace everything overnight, and we don't have to put off doing something until we have an ideal solution that is entirely transp
Seems to have a lot of inputs - and the early estimates put the cost at 2.5 - 4 times the cost of corn ethanol.
Um, no, the 2.5-4 in the article refers to estimates of the capital costs of the plant to produce cellulosic ethanol vs. the plant to produce corn ethanol, not the production costs per unit of the ethanol.
You see, that's where I don't get it: worker ants can be higly specialised, for instance, I've seen ants in the form of (relative) giant sacs which only were useful for storing some sweet excrement other ants gave them. Clearly, a queen having that mutation would die.
The problem with this is that it ignores that not all genes an organism has are necessarily expressed and that, particularly, the expression of genes may be triggered (or suppressed) by environmental conditions or by the presence or absence of other genes. Colony insects have evolved to very effectively exploit this.
So, in short, a queen with the mutation would not die, because the mutation would be dormant in a queen.
Are you implying that all the mutations of all the different workers are in the genes of the queen (and her eggs), but she herself expresses none of the phenology of it?
Yes, all the genes of the various castes are present in either or both the fertile male and fertile female individuals. They clearly aren't all expressed in the fertile individuals, nor all expressed in any of the various infertile castes; which are expressed and which suppressed depends on the environmental triggers to which the inviduals are exposed (mostly, feeding in the larval stage) which create the castes, and on genetic factors (such as those between males and females).
I'm quite aware of how the way evolution works, and the importance of genes, but I would like to know the specifics how a mutation is transferred by a queen, which is only usuable to worker-ants...
A queen doesn't do anything, essentially, but lie around and produce offspring. Whether any of the few (proportionately) of those offspring which are fertile have reproductive opportunities depends on the success of the colony, which depends on how effective the workers (etc.) are. Ergo, a queen that produces more effective workers (because that queen has a mutation that makes the workers it produces more effective) has a better chance of having offspring that themselves are able to reproduce. Ergo, such mutations will be selected for when they occur.
the point I'm getting at (but which I would like confirmation), is that all the mutations are in the genes of the queen, but none of it comes to expression in the phenology of the queen
Certainly, all the preserved mutations are in genes of the queen; workers may have mutations of their own, but they aren't preserved and are, from an evolutionary perspective, just a kind of "background noise".
Why are we currently pursuing the whole turn-food-to-fuel path anyway, given how wide open the algae field is?
Cellulosic ethanol isn't really turning food to fuel, since humans can't digest cellulose. Grain ethanol is "food to fuel", but it seems to have waning interest outside the US, where the corn lobby sees ethanol subsidies as yet another teat to suck on.
Algae is grown in tanks, so the process requires less land.
The limiting factor, I would think, in any biofuel production where the ultimate energy source is photosynthesis, whether you are using photosynthetic algae, or land-based plants, or whatever, is the area covered and the solar energy received there. That algae happens to live in tanks of water rather than on the surface of the land doesn't change that. Now, if you've got some kind of life form that lives on deep ocean vents whose ultimate energy source is geothermal and not solar, I suppose you could change the equation a bit, but conventional algae doesn't seem to be the deal.
Of course, algae can grow in places where you can't grow any land plants, so it might avoid conflicting with food sources that way.
Why is biofuel taking off and leaving hydrogen in the dust? Is it the safety factor or the control factor?
Biofuels are easier to store, easier to transport, easier to use in existing engines, not (with some exceptions, such as, IIRC, corn-based ethanol) either a net energy loss to produce or a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry the way hydrogen is. There are lots of reasons that biofuels are taking off.
China didn't ban ethanol production, indeed, China has a rather ambitious ethanol production agenda. China, however, has switch focus from grain produced ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, which is produced from cellulose from sources like switchgrass, rather than from grain crops that are human food staples.
In the case of social groups of insects, like bees and ants, you have different classes/groups of individual insects within one hive, some of which are highly specialised. I can't quite understand how that works, using darwinistic evolution. When one follows the theory of evolutionism with, say, mammals, it makes sense: a genetic change in sperm or egg can lead to an indivdual who is less or more adapted to their environment, and this indivdual passes those traits to his/her offspring.
But, in the case of social insects like ants, you have one queen (and usually one dar) who supplies all the sperm and eggs that the queen uses to create her offspring, resulting in sometimes very specialised ants/bees. But how did that specialisation come about in a heritary sense, when those specialised ants are unfertile, and can't reproduce themselves?
Richard Dawkins discusses a lot relevant to this issue in The Selfish Gene, I would suggest reading that book. But a short version is this: the right unit of analysis in terms of "fitness" in genetic evolution isn't really the organism, though that's often a convenient proxy, instead, its the gene. The specialization in "social" insects promotes the survival and passing on of their genes, even though the vast majority of individual organisms are sterile. Therefore, the trait enhances fitness of the genes, and is preserved. (Its also worth noting that in many social insects—all?—the difference between the fertile and nonfertile individuals, or at least, the fertile females and the sterile females that make up the bulk of the colony, is environmental and produced by the behavior of members of the colony, not genetic differences.)
Even if it is manual, there's nothing that says each piece of DNA has to be extracted one at a time. It could be done enmass by taking 'millions of microbes,' shredding the cells and running them through some sort of filter or enzyme that removes the cellular material and leaves the DNA as atleast some fragmented wholes.
Which is, as I understand it (my wife does DNA extraction as part of her job) how DNA extraction is done, anyhow, whether its from a single multicellular organism or a mass of (normally, relatively homogenous, from a common colony) microorganisms.
Where metagenomics is different is in taking samples not from a cultured colony, but from an environmental sample, and incorporate various laboratory and computational techniques to enable analyzing and isolating those of particular species within the sample without culturing them, which makes it more practical to study organisms that are difficult or impossible to culture.
But on a serious note, these people don't need toy computers, especially when the actual cost of a real computer is not that much more.
A computer adopted to the needs of a specific market and that is part of a project including software, support, and related products and services targetted to that markets needs—as the OLPC is, though the Classmate seems less so, at least from what I've heard so far—is not a "toy" simply because it is not adapted for a completely different market's needs.
But, yeah, the OLPC and the Classmate are more toy-like because their target userbase is the same as the target audience of most toys: kids. But they aren't "toy computers", they are real, though specialized, computers. (And, of course, that they aren't what you consider "real" computers limits their ability to be converted into money, anyhow, as people with the kind of needs that would motivate them to get what you call a "real" computer won't likely be buying many of what you refer to as "toy" computers.)
I understand thumbnails are extremely useful for handling images, marketing material etc. I rarely use it (maybe 5 times in as many years) but respect the value others place in it. I just need to know; would it really be too much to expect operators to explicitly turn on thumbnails for specific folders, rather than default to thumbs for everything?
No, the people that are most likely to want thumbnails are the least likely to explicitly turn them on, and the people most likely to not want them are the most likely to bother explicitly turning things off.
Viruses also need OS system calls to do the job. Unless there's also a full Windows emulation in Java (including the Windows bugs and vulnerabilities viruses depend on), how could this be used to analyze how viruses are working?
If you emulate the machine in Java well enough, you don't have to "emulate" Windows in Java, you just install a regular x86 version of Windows onto the emulated x86 machine running on the JVM, and, bang, you've got Windows (with all its bugs and vulnerabilities!) running under your JVM.
By the logic they use it would only save more money if the hardware itself was not the high end stuff that demands lots of juice.
Or, equivalently, switching to linux would allow you to delay upgrades to newer hardware, or, if you did upgrade, allow you to concentrate on energy-efficiency more.
Sure, the iPhone may eventually replace the iPod, but not in the short run; its initial price (even with the contract subsidy) is going to be in the neighborhood of the higher end video iPod, but its capacity as a media player will be more like the lower end iPods.
As long as you get a decent basic phone and a high-end iPod for about the same as a phone that also acts as a low-end iPod, the iPhone won't replace the iPod.
Slashdot Mirror
We have quite a few; first, its supposed to reduce it by reducing daily demand, and its supposed to do it generally across the nation. You don't need multiple years of data to get a decent idea of what is going on with that; you can look at the data from one month daily and by region, and see to what degree it appears to be true. Or you could look at the overall average over all regions and days, and see that the number is not different that what would have been expected without the change.
Of course, one might posit that there is some reason to expect that this month was systematically atypical in a way which would distort the results, but those making that claim ought to have something to point to to justify it.
First, "unseasonably warm spring" is somewhat irrelevant (and not established) as its not even 2 weeks into the 13 weeks of Spring, yet, and a significant portion of the new DST time is in winter.
Secondly, even considering the right time period, where is the evidence that an unseasonably warm March increases energy demand? Certainly, in the hottest areas it may increase cooling demand, but in much of the country a warm late-winter-to-early-spring is going to save energy by reducing cooling demand.
There is a difference between claims made by a products fannish consumers and claims made in marketing campaigns by for-profit companies designed to influence purchase decisions in which those companies (either directly or through strategic business relationships) have economic interests.
Namely, the former may be deceptive, but its going to be, as a rule, any kind of actionable deceptive marketing.
The website is not the part of the marketing campaign that is the subject of the lawsuit. So, whether the website which mentions the features provides such a link is not particularly relevant to the question, unless one is arguing that any person purchasing a "Windows Vista Capable" PC based on Microsoft's other marketing of Vista can reasonably be expected to have been exposed to the Windows Vista website (and, even if so, of course, only if those current distinctions were present in the prerelease version of the website when those computers were purchased.)
Sure, most companies don't showcase their low-end products. OTOH, when the high-end product is showcased as representing the brand-name it shares with the low-end product, and people are sold some third product on the basis of capacity to use a product identified with that shared brand name, when it cannot use the features that the seller has worked hard to identify with the shared brand name, the marketing is in fact deceptive. Whether it is also so in law may vary by other considerations, but, note that adds for particular brands of cars where there highlighted version has different options than the base that advertise selling points (such as price) applicable to the base model tend also to include reference to the higher price of the version "as shown". There is a reason for that.
You can with a change in DST that is supposed to save energy on both ends, and only affects one month on each end.
For other things, maybe not.
The reason we do it is that people are more likely to shop if they get off work and it is still light out, and thus it is a way to subsidize retail and related industries (the theoretical energy savings are based on the assumption that businesses won't change their schedule and will consume constant power, but the people staying out shopping won't go home and turn on their home appliances.)
The time change did not affect the amount of daylight, or the number of hours over which that daylight was distributed.
It may have affected hour your work schedule corresponded to the daylight hours, but that's a completely different thing.
Windows Vista may be a worthless suite, but what I think you mean to say is that the legal action appears to be a worthless suit.
However, I'm not convinced by your argument there. While people may have been able to get a Microsoft operating system called "Vista" for a "Vista capable" PC, they could not get the features Microsoft was advertising as the selling points of Vista before it was released (and, therefore, at the time they were buying the "Vista capable" PCs). Whether the misleading effects of those combinations of marketing claims made by Microsoft (not just the "Vista Capable" logo alone, but it in combination with the claims made for Vista) was deceptive under the law is, I think, less clear than you would suggest.
Is this really the first real success for that kind of "AI"? I'd rather thought that image classifiers based on neural networks and various other types of classifying techniques had been around for quite some time, and even used in realtime applications like self-driving cars that responded to road signs.
In Ruby, and presuming you haven't mucked with the core classes at all:
4 * 4 => 16
"4" * 4 => "4444"
I don't know of any language where 4 * 4 => 4444.
Strings are not the same things as numbers.
Plug-in hybrids are the most likely, which are, really, simply electric vehicles when taking short trips, and some other fuel (usually gasoline now, but there is no reason they have to be) vehicles when taking long trips. Since, at least in the US, most auto trips are short and most people are resistant to pure electrics because they want to retain the capacity to make the less-frequent long trips in their personal vehicle, plug-in hybrids have the potential get you most of the benefits of electric vehicles (since, in most trips, they are electric vehicles) while overcoming the main obstacle to adoption.
(Of course, electric vehicles in that form factor have happened in our lifetime, for the brief while where California actually internalized the externalized benefits of electric vehicles; of course, political pressure from big money groups got that ended right quick. OTOH, the increasing concern about global warming makes it more likely that internalize the external benefits of clean vehicles—or, equivalently, internalizing the external costs of dirty ones—will be more durably politically viable, so you may be overly pessimistic about the potential for all-electric vehicles to make a comeback.)
The major-manufacturer production electric cars released in the 1990s before California dismantled the ZEV mandate that had NiMH batteries rather than lead acid had ranges in excess of 100 miles per charge (including the the Honda EV plus, Toyota RAV4 EV, the later version of GM EV1.) Which is certainly more than you'd get with similar vehicles with 1 gallon of gas if powered by a traditional gasoline engine, and even more (though not by as much) than, say, the hybrid prototypes based on the EV1 got per gallon. So, I'd say that you are significantly understating by saying that 1 gallon equivalent is "lucky" in an EV1, when the few production EVs have done better.
Sure, that would be ideal, if it was feasible (actually, it is for replacing diesel fuel—biodiesels that work as "drop-in" replacements exist now; gasoline is more of a challenge, except for vehicles that were engineered to take a wide range of fuels, which are a small fraction of the usually-gasoline-powered vehicles on the market.)
Why? Gas isn't going to disappear overnight if whatever transition we begin begins soon. Yeah, the quicker we get rid of it the better, but there are all kinds of ways to start attacking the problem now through more efficient gas-powered vehicles, new vehicles that use alternative fuels, etc. We don't have to replace everything overnight, and we don't have to put off doing something until we have an ideal solution that is entirely transp
Um, no, the 2.5-4 in the article refers to estimates of the capital costs of the plant to produce cellulosic ethanol vs. the plant to produce corn ethanol, not the production costs per unit of the ethanol.
The problem with this is that it ignores that not all genes an organism has are necessarily expressed and that, particularly, the expression of genes may be triggered (or suppressed) by environmental conditions or by the presence or absence of other genes. Colony insects have evolved to very effectively exploit this.
So, in short, a queen with the mutation would not die, because the mutation would be dormant in a queen.
Yes, all the genes of the various castes are present in either or both the fertile male and fertile female individuals. They clearly aren't all expressed in the fertile individuals, nor all expressed in any of the various infertile castes; which are expressed and which suppressed depends on the environmental triggers to which the inviduals are exposed (mostly, feeding in the larval stage) which create the castes, and on genetic factors (such as those between males and females).
A queen doesn't do anything, essentially, but lie around and produce offspring. Whether any of the few (proportionately) of those offspring which are fertile have reproductive opportunities depends on the success of the colony, which depends on how effective the workers (etc.) are. Ergo, a queen that produces more effective workers (because that queen has a mutation that makes the workers it produces more effective) has a better chance of having offspring that themselves are able to reproduce. Ergo, such mutations will be selected for when they occur.
Certainly, all the preserved mutations are in genes of the queen; workers may have mutations of their own, but they aren't preserved and are, from an evolutionary perspective, just a kind of "background noise".
Cellulosic ethanol isn't really turning food to fuel, since humans can't digest cellulose. Grain ethanol is "food to fuel", but it seems to have waning interest outside the US, where the corn lobby sees ethanol subsidies as yet another teat to suck on.
The limiting factor, I would think, in any biofuel production where the ultimate energy source is photosynthesis, whether you are using photosynthetic algae, or land-based plants, or whatever, is the area covered and the solar energy received there. That algae happens to live in tanks of water rather than on the surface of the land doesn't change that. Now, if you've got some kind of life form that lives on deep ocean vents whose ultimate energy source is geothermal and not solar, I suppose you could change the equation a bit, but conventional algae doesn't seem to be the deal.
Of course, algae can grow in places where you can't grow any land plants, so it might avoid conflicting with food sources that way.
Biofuels are easier to store, easier to transport, easier to use in existing engines, not (with some exceptions, such as, IIRC, corn-based ethanol) either a net energy loss to produce or a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry the way hydrogen is. There are lots of reasons that biofuels are taking off.
China didn't ban ethanol production, indeed, China has a rather ambitious ethanol production agenda. China, however, has switch focus from grain produced ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, which is produced from cellulose from sources like switchgrass, rather than from grain crops that are human food staples.
Richard Dawkins discusses a lot relevant to this issue in The Selfish Gene, I would suggest reading that book. But a short version is this: the right unit of analysis in terms of "fitness" in genetic evolution isn't really the organism, though that's often a convenient proxy, instead, its the gene. The specialization in "social" insects promotes the survival and passing on of their genes, even though the vast majority of individual organisms are sterile. Therefore, the trait enhances fitness of the genes, and is preserved. (Its also worth noting that in many social insects—all?—the difference between the fertile and nonfertile individuals, or at least, the fertile females and the sterile females that make up the bulk of the colony, is environmental and produced by the behavior of members of the colony, not genetic differences.)
Which is, as I understand it (my wife does DNA extraction as part of her job) how DNA extraction is done, anyhow, whether its from a single multicellular organism or a mass of (normally, relatively homogenous, from a common colony) microorganisms.
Where metagenomics is different is in taking samples not from a cultured colony, but from an environmental sample, and incorporate various laboratory and computational techniques to enable analyzing and isolating those of particular species within the sample without culturing them, which makes it more practical to study organisms that are difficult or impossible to culture.
A computer adopted to the needs of a specific market and that is part of a project including software, support, and related products and services targetted to that markets needs—as the OLPC is, though the Classmate seems less so, at least from what I've heard so far—is not a "toy" simply because it is not adapted for a completely different market's needs.
But, yeah, the OLPC and the Classmate are more toy-like because their target userbase is the same as the target audience of most toys: kids. But they aren't "toy computers", they are real, though specialized, computers. (And, of course, that they aren't what you consider "real" computers limits their ability to be converted into money, anyhow, as people with the kind of needs that would motivate them to get what you call a "real" computer won't likely be buying many of what you refer to as "toy" computers.)
No, the people that are most likely to want thumbnails are the least likely to explicitly turn them on, and the people most likely to not want them are the most likely to bother explicitly turning things off.
If you emulate the machine in Java well enough, you don't have to "emulate" Windows in Java, you just install a regular x86 version of Windows onto the emulated x86 machine running on the JVM, and, bang, you've got Windows (with all its bugs and vulnerabilities!) running under your JVM.
Or, equivalently, switching to linux would allow you to delay upgrades to newer hardware, or, if you did upgrade, allow you to concentrate on energy-efficiency more.
Hence the savings.
Sure, the iPhone may eventually replace the iPod, but not in the short run; its initial price (even with the contract subsidy) is going to be in the neighborhood of the higher end video iPod, but its capacity as a media player will be more like the lower end iPods.
As long as you get a decent basic phone and a high-end iPod for about the same as a phone that also acts as a low-end iPod, the iPhone won't replace the iPod.