Apple 26.2
Apr 15, 04:09 PM
Whatever differences exist, you'll get used to them.
Popeye206
Apr 21, 08:53 AM
Look Android lovers... this is an Apple site. You don't need to call us "Fanboys" in a condescending way here. We are here because we love our Macs, iOS devices or we develop for them and like to keep up on the news. Yes... many here are "fanboys".
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 12:43 PM
I am religious, however, I have to say there is some sort of motivation inside me to stick to my religion. I can't put my finger on what it is exactly, but there's something there. I'm always looking forward to something for some reason.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
Well�we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don�t have to go there. :p
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
TheT
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Amazing Iceman
Apr 28, 11:20 AM
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
iMeowbot
Sep 20, 10:03 AM
DVR capabilities, i really doubt. I wouldn't be at all surprised, however, if the box had access to all the regular iTunes stuff (store, podcasts, radio).
yodaxl7
Feb 21, 11:25 PM
iPhone is totally a trend. iPod is simply a dedicated device to play music and maybe video. The mult-touch and app store are two key creations that made the iphone a trend. That's why you see other companies following Apple's foot step. Android is a new niche that was a couple step behind iphone os. Google is a "business making" or "jump starter". So, there is no REAL support for Android os. Google is too open. This os will challenge the market weed out bad companies. However, this can hurt the android survival!! iPhone os will remain the dominant force as long as Apple continue to upgrade well.
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Machead III
Sep 20, 06:05 AM
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
dcranston
Sep 21, 04:30 AM
I'm glad to see at least a few people get it. Obviously iTV isn't for everyone. But let's take a look at the 6 most common complaints on this board:
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:30 AM
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
No, that's nothing more than a shared characteristic of a "fad" and an established product.
Of course, if you consider the iPod a fad, then there's not a lot more to discuss. The iPod led to the iPod Touch, which is the foundation of the iPhone, which others then set about trying to copy.
So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
No, that's nothing more than a shared characteristic of a "fad" and an established product.
Of course, if you consider the iPod a fad, then there's not a lot more to discuss. The iPod led to the iPod Touch, which is the foundation of the iPhone, which others then set about trying to copy.
So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Al Coholic
May 2, 11:13 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?I'd rather deal with the virus myself. AV software on a PC *is* a virus as far as I'm concerned.
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
MACRUS
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
gohanmzt
Apr 20, 06:47 PM
Once you use Windows, you are doing something stupid :D
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
prady16
Aug 29, 10:55 AM
I sure do appreciate Dell for this!
If only they had making better quality products as their first priority!
If only they had making better quality products as their first priority!
Gabriel GR
Feb 11, 09:10 PM
Honestly. The only things I want from an internet empowered phone is to work well with my email (gmail) and calendar.
So far my blackberry serves me alright. But it sucks in everything else.
So far my blackberry serves me alright. But it sucks in everything else.
Chris here
Sep 29, 07:23 AM
No.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 09:42 AM
What do you DO with your Windows box?
Web development, website management, domain name management, some graphics, some photography, lots of asking questions on forums. :)
What applications are important to you?
Firefox. Wordpress. MS Excel. MS Word. Notepad. Domain Name software (Windows only). Photoshop. Lightroom. CuteFTP. MS FrontPage (yep, really). TeamViewer. Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD.
Web development, website management, domain name management, some graphics, some photography, lots of asking questions on forums. :)
What applications are important to you?
Firefox. Wordpress. MS Excel. MS Word. Notepad. Domain Name software (Windows only). Photoshop. Lightroom. CuteFTP. MS FrontPage (yep, really). TeamViewer. Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD.
bradl
Mar 12, 02:20 AM
Keep the tasteless joke posts out of here.
As someone knowing people in Fukushima and Sendai who lost everything but their lives yesterday (though one guy's cat was killed), these posts are crap, and I have already reported two, and will continue to do so.
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
This is the worst devastation Japan has seen in a few hundred years.
Considering how terrible this is, having (so far) a mere thousand or two dead/missing (almost all so far being a result of the tsunami and not the quake itself) is a miracle, and a testament to the warning systems, the building codes and construction, and the seriousness with which these issues are taken by the Japanese and the preparedness they show.
Times like this I truly admire the Japanese. And, like Kobe after the Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995, Japan will rebuild better, more beautifully, more gracefully, and be stronger than ever, in just a few years' time. Kobe is absolutely stunning today, and in time so too will Sendai be. Japan will not treat this like Katrina.
+1
Very well said.
BL.
As someone knowing people in Fukushima and Sendai who lost everything but their lives yesterday (though one guy's cat was killed), these posts are crap, and I have already reported two, and will continue to do so.
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
This is the worst devastation Japan has seen in a few hundred years.
Considering how terrible this is, having (so far) a mere thousand or two dead/missing (almost all so far being a result of the tsunami and not the quake itself) is a miracle, and a testament to the warning systems, the building codes and construction, and the seriousness with which these issues are taken by the Japanese and the preparedness they show.
Times like this I truly admire the Japanese. And, like Kobe after the Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995, Japan will rebuild better, more beautifully, more gracefully, and be stronger than ever, in just a few years' time. Kobe is absolutely stunning today, and in time so too will Sendai be. Japan will not treat this like Katrina.
+1
Very well said.
BL.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu