nagromme
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
mscriv
Apr 6, 01:39 PM
i think some people just hold their preference too dearly sometimes, and then insist that anything that falls outside their comfort-zone is annoying.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
Fgirl, I just wanted you to know that I think your post is right on target and I enjoyed reading it.
I'm what I call "bi-platform" in that I use Mac in my personal life and Windows at work. I'm "fluent" in both and agree that it's not typically one being better than the other, but just being different.
For the OP, in terms of general navigation and customization I would say a Mac can do everything you are wondering about. It will do it differently than Windows does, but it can do it. The "shift" vs. "cmd" for shortcuts is an example. The buttons function the same, it's just a different button on a mac keyboard than on a PC keyboard.
Best of luck with your decision.
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
Fgirl, I just wanted you to know that I think your post is right on target and I enjoyed reading it.
I'm what I call "bi-platform" in that I use Mac in my personal life and Windows at work. I'm "fluent" in both and agree that it's not typically one being better than the other, but just being different.
For the OP, in terms of general navigation and customization I would say a Mac can do everything you are wondering about. It will do it differently than Windows does, but it can do it. The "shift" vs. "cmd" for shortcuts is an example. The buttons function the same, it's just a different button on a mac keyboard than on a PC keyboard.
Best of luck with your decision.
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.
alexf
Aug 29, 11:36 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
gnasher729
Sep 12, 07:42 PM
I sure wish Apple would have come up with a system for ripping DVDs to my computer and cataloging them, that I would have loved. How much you want to bet that never happens?
Use Handbrake to convert to H.264, then drag the result into iTunes.
Use Handbrake to convert to H.264, then drag the result into iTunes.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:03 PM
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
TennisandMusic
Apr 21, 04:12 PM
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
Yeah I pretty much agree on those points. I've had them all, had the iPhone 4, bought an android (Galaxy S) and a windows phone 7 (Samsung Focus) and am now back on the iPhone 4 with no regrets.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
Yeah I pretty much agree on those points. I've had them all, had the iPhone 4, bought an android (Galaxy S) and a windows phone 7 (Samsung Focus) and am now back on the iPhone 4 with no regrets.
Sydde
Mar 14, 07:47 PM
And as long as humans are in charge of designing, building, and maintaining them, there will be errors.
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
Satori
Apr 20, 05:12 PM
No big surprises there
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:31 PM
proof?
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 15, 06:09 AM
I think the worst-case scenario are winds blowing the plume inland.
And if the container degrades - fuel melts and "spills out" - does this not indicate loss of contact with the control rods? What's to stop things from there?
As for the comment earlier up about workers being there so things must be safe... You obviously don't remember what happened in the former USSR a quarter century back. Factor in the Japanese culture where self-sacrifice for the good of their people is looked highly upon. I'd say there's a damn good chance they know their killing themselves, but will continue to work to their ends.
And if the container degrades - fuel melts and "spills out" - does this not indicate loss of contact with the control rods? What's to stop things from there?
As for the comment earlier up about workers being there so things must be safe... You obviously don't remember what happened in the former USSR a quarter century back. Factor in the Japanese culture where self-sacrifice for the good of their people is looked highly upon. I'd say there's a damn good chance they know their killing themselves, but will continue to work to their ends.
drevvin
May 18, 11:38 AM
drevvin: I don't know where you get your "facts" from, but this is utter B.S. according to everything my friends and I have experienced.
Other carriers are going to have just as much "network congestion" with the other smartphones they're starting to put on their systems (Android based platforms with "true web browsers", etc.). So if your statement was accurate, we'd see a surge of complaints from Verizon customers, since they got the HTC Hero and Incredible phones. We don't....
Furthermore, the dropped call issue has LONG been an issue for AT&T, no matter which phone you use with them! One of my friends had a Razr and a Blackjack phone on AT&T, and got an iPhone after that. He had the same number of call drops with any of the 3 phones while he was with them -- usually in the same places where their signal was inadequate.
Words like "horrible" are relative... What one person considers horrible, someone else will consider acceptable. But I think it's clear that AT&T is not one of the "better" providers. I have a laundry list of issues with them, including their latest screw-up ... issuing me a VISA rebate card that's not possible to activate, because they didn't set it up properly. (I'm supposed to enter the last 4 digits of my acct. number as my PIN to activate it by phone or over the web, but it won't accept them!) They're also notorious for screwing up my billing by not sending me a bill one month, and then billing me for 2 consecutive months - if I don't proactively sign into the web and pay them first. They're FAR more expensive than some of their competitors for basic voice service, despite the relatively lousy coverage. And even the rollover minutes are subject to cancellation under all sorts of conditions, including when you decide to go from a more expensive plan to a less expensive one or fail to use them up in a 1 year period of time.
An over-saturation of data usage on a cellular network should cause issues with poor DATA performance, but should have NO bearing on dropped calls on the VOICE side. I'd be relatively ok with occasional poor data performance, because that's of secondary importance to me, really. You can always retry a download or wait a little longer for an email to pull in. But the VOICE side needs to be pretty bulletproof. You can't recover from dropped calls without redialing the phone.... AT&T seems to be playing a lot of games of promising data network improvements in response to people's complaints of VOICE issues, hoping they're ignorant of the way the network works.... (Voice issues are more expensive for them to fix since it usually means new towers have to be put up, vs. possibly just increasing some back-haul bandwidth to an existing tower.)
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....and again it mostly boils down to the lack of experience in Apple's Iphone which I myself use but I understand that if I wanna use a phone just for voice I would not use the Iphone I would go with Motorola or Nokia but because I wanna have a (Phone, Camera, PDA, Mp3 Player, Internet and Email Portal, Game Device,) I use the Iphone and don't complain when my voice suffers at the cost of having the ability to do all that. But thats just me.
Other carriers are going to have just as much "network congestion" with the other smartphones they're starting to put on their systems (Android based platforms with "true web browsers", etc.). So if your statement was accurate, we'd see a surge of complaints from Verizon customers, since they got the HTC Hero and Incredible phones. We don't....
Furthermore, the dropped call issue has LONG been an issue for AT&T, no matter which phone you use with them! One of my friends had a Razr and a Blackjack phone on AT&T, and got an iPhone after that. He had the same number of call drops with any of the 3 phones while he was with them -- usually in the same places where their signal was inadequate.
Words like "horrible" are relative... What one person considers horrible, someone else will consider acceptable. But I think it's clear that AT&T is not one of the "better" providers. I have a laundry list of issues with them, including their latest screw-up ... issuing me a VISA rebate card that's not possible to activate, because they didn't set it up properly. (I'm supposed to enter the last 4 digits of my acct. number as my PIN to activate it by phone or over the web, but it won't accept them!) They're also notorious for screwing up my billing by not sending me a bill one month, and then billing me for 2 consecutive months - if I don't proactively sign into the web and pay them first. They're FAR more expensive than some of their competitors for basic voice service, despite the relatively lousy coverage. And even the rollover minutes are subject to cancellation under all sorts of conditions, including when you decide to go from a more expensive plan to a less expensive one or fail to use them up in a 1 year period of time.
An over-saturation of data usage on a cellular network should cause issues with poor DATA performance, but should have NO bearing on dropped calls on the VOICE side. I'd be relatively ok with occasional poor data performance, because that's of secondary importance to me, really. You can always retry a download or wait a little longer for an email to pull in. But the VOICE side needs to be pretty bulletproof. You can't recover from dropped calls without redialing the phone.... AT&T seems to be playing a lot of games of promising data network improvements in response to people's complaints of VOICE issues, hoping they're ignorant of the way the network works.... (Voice issues are more expensive for them to fix since it usually means new towers have to be put up, vs. possibly just increasing some back-haul bandwidth to an existing tower.)
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....and again it mostly boils down to the lack of experience in Apple's Iphone which I myself use but I understand that if I wanna use a phone just for voice I would not use the Iphone I would go with Motorola or Nokia but because I wanna have a (Phone, Camera, PDA, Mp3 Player, Internet and Email Portal, Game Device,) I use the Iphone and don't complain when my voice suffers at the cost of having the ability to do all that. But thats just me.
OllyW
Apr 13, 02:41 AM
I bet the guy who destroyed iMovie 06 has something to do with this. Lets just hope I'm wrong.
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Xeperu
Mar 13, 08:25 AM
The problematic power plants in Japan are of a very old and outdated design. Generation 3, 3+ and Generation 4 design are much much safer. I'm still a firm defender of nuclear power, and I believe with new technologies it is still the future.
Eraserhead
Mar 13, 07:04 PM
'Renewables' are hardly without issue either. To make a decent amount of power you have to do it on a massive scale. What are your thoughts on the Chinese Three Gorges Dam?
And even given that China has had to build a hell of a lot of coal power stations.
And even given that China has had to build a hell of a lot of coal power stations.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:19 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
As I said above, I don't think the difference will be terribly huge. But if apple doesn't move the prices of their top computers too much we'll be in for a good price comparitively. Apple is also likely to offer a larger amount of RAM available. The Dell workstations I configured in the post could only be configured with up to 4GB RAM, anything else you had to add yourself. Of course, apple RAM may be more expensive by a good deal so we will probably see a lot of people buying 3rd party here.
And lets see if apple has another quad at 2x 2.3ghz dual core, that saves $520 more versus the 2x2.66 DC quad, or $1340 versus the 2x3GHz DC quad. Past that point you have diminishing returns. Quad core 2x2.0GHz dual core saves you $260 over the 2.3GHz, $780 over the 2.66, or $1600 over the 3GHz.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
As I said above, I don't think the difference will be terribly huge. But if apple doesn't move the prices of their top computers too much we'll be in for a good price comparitively. Apple is also likely to offer a larger amount of RAM available. The Dell workstations I configured in the post could only be configured with up to 4GB RAM, anything else you had to add yourself. Of course, apple RAM may be more expensive by a good deal so we will probably see a lot of people buying 3rd party here.
And lets see if apple has another quad at 2x 2.3ghz dual core, that saves $520 more versus the 2x2.66 DC quad, or $1340 versus the 2x3GHz DC quad. Past that point you have diminishing returns. Quad core 2x2.0GHz dual core saves you $260 over the 2.3GHz, $780 over the 2.66, or $1600 over the 3GHz.
Surely
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
WalkingDED
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:18 AM
The point is, it's Apple. It's where the entire market is headed.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:06 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that?Yes.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
firestarter
Mar 14, 11:30 AM
"Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this."
If you've got an hour 20 to kill, you can view Goto's entire press conference from today: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13320522
(He's also going to be doing an update, with another conference same time tomorrow).
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
He's also concerned that the senior people making decisions may not be the correct/most knowledgable... which wouldn't be a surprise to student of Japanese corporations (or any corporation, to be fair).
If you've got an hour 20 to kill, you can view Goto's entire press conference from today: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13320522
(He's also going to be doing an update, with another conference same time tomorrow).
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
He's also concerned that the senior people making decisions may not be the correct/most knowledgable... which wouldn't be a surprise to student of Japanese corporations (or any corporation, to be fair).
tjcampbell
Apr 24, 05:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 12, 01:44 PM
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
space2go
Mar 20, 08:25 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar