Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
BRLawyer
Nov 16, 09:36 AM
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
Well, this reminds me of that presentation given by Steve Jobs (on the new G4s, I think), where he said, for a certain specific technology ("latent semantic" or whatever) that:
"I have no idea what that is; but trust me, it works..!" :p
Well, this reminds me of that presentation given by Steve Jobs (on the new G4s, I think), where he said, for a certain specific technology ("latent semantic" or whatever) that:
"I have no idea what that is; but trust me, it works..!" :p
aswitcher
Jan 12, 04:16 PM
Perhaps AIR is an acronym?
Apple I______ R______ :)
Apple Is Righteous
Apple Internet Remote
Apple I______ R______ :)
Apple Is Righteous
Apple Internet Remote
Lord Blackadder
Feb 23, 12:44 PM
It's funny because neither GM nor Ford in Europe use their own Diesel engines, instead GM use Fiat engines and Ford use a Peugeot-Citroen engine.
Wonder if this will be the case in this? Chevy in Europe is a very cheap and nasty brand of car, much like Kia (they are re-branded Daewoo's).
The current Cruze is a "world car", but if you plow through the marketing jibberish it appears that the car was engineered mostly by Daewoo with help from Opel. It's being built in Russia, China, South Korea and the USA (Ohio).
The diesel is an Italian (VM Motori) design, and on paper the numbers are pretty good: 150hp and 240 ft-lbs from a 2.0L I4. It's a common rail direct injection turbosiesel.
IMO European manufacturers have had much longer to perfect the technology (i.e. Common Rail Injected Diesel) so GM are up against it here.
The beauty of this move for GM is that the car is already being built in this configuration everywhere except in the US, so minimal design work needs to be done - all that is required is to get the diesel federalized (made US emissions-legal), and that will probably only involve a few small modifications.
So when will automakers sell a compact pickup with a 2 liter diesel in the US? I want a diesel pick up. But I don't want a behemoth that requires a ladder to enter and hogs 2/3 of a 2 car garage.:p
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
We almost got such a truck (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/08/taj-mahauler-we-drive-the-mahindra-diesel-pik-up.html), but the whole project fizzled (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/10/report-mahindra-diesel-pickup-truck-launch-in-us-indefinitely-delayed.html).
I don't see any similar vehicle coming to the US soon. For now, if you want a small diesel pickup you either have to buy an old 1970s-1980s Japanese pickup (a few were made as diesels) or do-it-yourself (http://vpizza.org/~jmeehan/toyotadiesel/).
Wonder if this will be the case in this? Chevy in Europe is a very cheap and nasty brand of car, much like Kia (they are re-branded Daewoo's).
The current Cruze is a "world car", but if you plow through the marketing jibberish it appears that the car was engineered mostly by Daewoo with help from Opel. It's being built in Russia, China, South Korea and the USA (Ohio).
The diesel is an Italian (VM Motori) design, and on paper the numbers are pretty good: 150hp and 240 ft-lbs from a 2.0L I4. It's a common rail direct injection turbosiesel.
IMO European manufacturers have had much longer to perfect the technology (i.e. Common Rail Injected Diesel) so GM are up against it here.
The beauty of this move for GM is that the car is already being built in this configuration everywhere except in the US, so minimal design work needs to be done - all that is required is to get the diesel federalized (made US emissions-legal), and that will probably only involve a few small modifications.
So when will automakers sell a compact pickup with a 2 liter diesel in the US? I want a diesel pick up. But I don't want a behemoth that requires a ladder to enter and hogs 2/3 of a 2 car garage.:p
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
We almost got such a truck (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/08/taj-mahauler-we-drive-the-mahindra-diesel-pik-up.html), but the whole project fizzled (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/10/report-mahindra-diesel-pickup-truck-launch-in-us-indefinitely-delayed.html).
I don't see any similar vehicle coming to the US soon. For now, if you want a small diesel pickup you either have to buy an old 1970s-1980s Japanese pickup (a few were made as diesels) or do-it-yourself (http://vpizza.org/~jmeehan/toyotadiesel/).
brepublican
Sep 6, 09:40 AM
yes we can! let me show you_:
were's my macbook core 2 duo :mad:
were's the new ipod/iphone :(
no new apple displays? apple what are you doing!?! :confused:
how about a new macbook pro? :confused:
how about a new newton! :mad:
were is my sub 500$ macmini? :confused:
no new cases ? bah!
its this easy
I dont think its that simple. This makes the mini wayyy more appealing to alot of people. Its a close call if you're deciding to get a mini or an iMac.
And aren't there more new announcements next week on the 12th? I dread to think of what new killer products/updates they are reserving that for!
were's my macbook core 2 duo :mad:
were's the new ipod/iphone :(
no new apple displays? apple what are you doing!?! :confused:
how about a new macbook pro? :confused:
how about a new newton! :mad:
were is my sub 500$ macmini? :confused:
no new cases ? bah!
its this easy
I dont think its that simple. This makes the mini wayyy more appealing to alot of people. Its a close call if you're deciding to get a mini or an iMac.
And aren't there more new announcements next week on the 12th? I dread to think of what new killer products/updates they are reserving that for!
BenRoethig
Aug 29, 04:49 PM
Exactly!!!
I media center like this would sell like crazy... small, simple and elegant. Just imagine how many switchers you would get at the same time.
I don't know about switchers, but it should be a success in the home entertainment center/ media PC market.
I media center like this would sell like crazy... small, simple and elegant. Just imagine how many switchers you would get at the same time.
I don't know about switchers, but it should be a success in the home entertainment center/ media PC market.
da5id
Oct 23, 03:29 PM
I don't know if this update is imminent. apple.com store still shows macbooks and mbp as shipping within 24 hours....
Unless the new MBPs are shipping tomorrow..:rolleyes:
Unless the new MBPs are shipping tomorrow..:rolleyes:
regandarcy
Apr 19, 11:38 AM
256 should be perfect. If you need more space I'd say invest in a NAT or just external drive.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
Don't get me wrong, it is "doable". Heck, even 128gbs is doable. But I like to load my iTunes music catalog on my laptops which is like 50gbs. Then there's all the software I use that take up massive space like the adobe suites and final cut etc. They easily swallow up over 100gbs, leaving very little room to play with for me.
Trust me, I'm definitely a less is more kinda guy. That's why I prefer the MacBook air over the pros...just alittle more would definitely clinch it for me.
I've heard rumors that the next big redesign of the MacBook pros will do away with the optical drives too and mimic the Airs form factor. But that won't be until next January at the earliest.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
Don't get me wrong, it is "doable". Heck, even 128gbs is doable. But I like to load my iTunes music catalog on my laptops which is like 50gbs. Then there's all the software I use that take up massive space like the adobe suites and final cut etc. They easily swallow up over 100gbs, leaving very little room to play with for me.
Trust me, I'm definitely a less is more kinda guy. That's why I prefer the MacBook air over the pros...just alittle more would definitely clinch it for me.
I've heard rumors that the next big redesign of the MacBook pros will do away with the optical drives too and mimic the Airs form factor. But that won't be until next January at the earliest.
rdrr
Nov 27, 01:47 PM
Don't they already make one? Its called a 17" MacBook Pro... :)
haravikk
Jun 22, 02:49 PM
While it'd be kind of cool to have a touch-enabled iMac screen, the only people who will really benefit from this are museums that like to use iMacs as all-in-one systems for an interactive, but then they tend to just buy add-on touch sensors or those rollerball things instead.
BoyBach
Aug 7, 05:14 AM
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
Finish work at 5.30pm - 1 hour of 5-a-side footy (6.00 - 7.00pm) - drive home, eat & shower by 7.30pm - turn on Mac, log into MacRumors (hopefully it'll be running!) - and laugh at all you silly bugger's who have to spend �1000's on a new Mac and display :p
Finish work at 5.30pm - 1 hour of 5-a-side footy (6.00 - 7.00pm) - drive home, eat & shower by 7.30pm - turn on Mac, log into MacRumors (hopefully it'll be running!) - and laugh at all you silly bugger's who have to spend �1000's on a new Mac and display :p
NAG
Jan 12, 06:32 PM
I've always been a fan of the device that lets you remote access your computer (like a Star Trek PADD). Doubt we'll see one anytime soon though.
jake4ever
Apr 2, 01:36 AM
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
MacinDoc
Sep 1, 02:20 PM
Well, if AI said so, I believe it.
And, yes, the only way to get rid of the chin is to have an external power brick and external or downgraded speakers.
I, for one, think the iMac and Mac Mini will get Merom due to their form factors, and a yet to be announced minitower will get Conroe (just ask AidenShaw).
And, yes, the only way to get rid of the chin is to have an external power brick and external or downgraded speakers.
I, for one, think the iMac and Mac Mini will get Merom due to their form factors, and a yet to be announced minitower will get Conroe (just ask AidenShaw).
r.j.s
Jan 2, 04:37 PM
Here we go, the new and improved 2011 Picture of your car thread.
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
Evan_11
Jul 18, 10:34 AM
iTunes is the best place to release your movie via the internet if you want it to be seen. FrontRow I have found works great for streaming movie trailers and the quality is pretty good too (though not DVD quality but much better than anything iPod video encoded).
Anyway if implemented beyond just studio movies this could be a major milestone for independent filmmaking.
Anyway if implemented beyond just studio movies this could be a major milestone for independent filmmaking.
bokdol
Nov 28, 09:53 AM
one of the key differences between the xbox and zune. is that microsoft only had to contend with 2 other players in the video game indistry. the ipod maybe top. but there are hundred of other companies to battle first just to reach second place. and also phone companies. spending money maynot help them like in the case of the xbox.
Popeye206
May 2, 05:30 PM
I got a another newbie question
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
I wouldn't worry about the OS... all new Macs will run Lion and depending on the specifics, you'll probably get the upgrade for free or very cheap. Also, unless Apple chances something, past upgrades can be easily installed on multiple machines. Where MS has Windows licensed to a CPU, Apple does not care. They don't make that much money on the OS sales, they make the money on the hardware.
So, if you're going to wait for anything, I would wait for the World Wide Developers Conference in June and see what's announced there, then make your purchase. Then you'll have a good idea of what's new and be ready for Lion.
Welcome aboard!
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
I wouldn't worry about the OS... all new Macs will run Lion and depending on the specifics, you'll probably get the upgrade for free or very cheap. Also, unless Apple chances something, past upgrades can be easily installed on multiple machines. Where MS has Windows licensed to a CPU, Apple does not care. They don't make that much money on the OS sales, they make the money on the hardware.
So, if you're going to wait for anything, I would wait for the World Wide Developers Conference in June and see what's announced there, then make your purchase. Then you'll have a good idea of what's new and be ready for Lion.
Welcome aboard!
jgould
Feb 22, 07:15 PM
Couldn't afford an iMac just yet so I'm using I have my Mac Book Pro 13" hooked up to an HP w2207 monitor!
How are you managing your cables behind the BookArc? I just picked one up and am doing what I've been doing for years: A binder clip with everything except the display cable attached to it. I wish I could find a Mini DisplayPort to DVI cable, but those don't seem to exist.
I'm going to post a new picture of my desk shortly.
How are you managing your cables behind the BookArc? I just picked one up and am doing what I've been doing for years: A binder clip with everything except the display cable attached to it. I wish I could find a Mini DisplayPort to DVI cable, but those don't seem to exist.
I'm going to post a new picture of my desk shortly.
Wild-Bill
Jan 12, 02:17 PM
"Macbook Air" is an awful, awful name.
amarcus
Jun 22, 12:00 PM
Then what was the point in the iPad?
Metatron
Jan 1, 05:46 PM
Whatever happend to the thin macbook? That is all I wanted this year.
treblah
Aug 6, 09:36 PM
Blah, it should read "Mac OS X Leopard, introducing Panter 2.0"
Panther?
Let me steer this off topic real quick. I have read before that Apple has two OS teams so "in theory" Leopard would, in fact, be Panther 2.0 and 10.7 would be Tiger 2.0. Again, in theory… Can someone clear that up?
On topic: Hooray Leopard!
Panther?
Let me steer this off topic real quick. I have read before that Apple has two OS teams so "in theory" Leopard would, in fact, be Panther 2.0 and 10.7 would be Tiger 2.0. Again, in theory… Can someone clear that up?
On topic: Hooray Leopard!
*LTD*
Mar 27, 04:13 PM
There is a difference between being realistic about devices and having your head in the clouds. I LOVE my apple gear and can't wait to get an ipad, but I am realistic in it's current capability
I assume that's what you meant. Because we've seen touchscreen devices advance by leaps and bounds since June 2007. In two years' time it will very likely be an entirely new ballgame with such devices being a dominant force in tech, including gaming.
This little demo is just barely scratching the surface.
I assume that's what you meant. Because we've seen touchscreen devices advance by leaps and bounds since June 2007. In two years' time it will very likely be an entirely new ballgame with such devices being a dominant force in tech, including gaming.
This little demo is just barely scratching the surface.
