gnasher729
Oct 2, 05:12 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
Napster (and Vongo, never heard of them) couldn't do that. Fairplay doesn't have any time limit. If you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, it will work forever (or as long as Apple Computer exists). If you have a Napster subscription, and Napster made it possible that you download a song and add the Fairplay DRM to it, then iTunes would play it today and forever.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
Napster (and Vongo, never heard of them) couldn't do that. Fairplay doesn't have any time limit. If you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, it will work forever (or as long as Apple Computer exists). If you have a Napster subscription, and Napster made it possible that you download a song and add the Fairplay DRM to it, then iTunes would play it today and forever.
fsck-y dingo
Nov 8, 04:16 PM
I pre-ordered it for PS3 from ebgames. I'll pick it up after work tomorrow.
The best was COD 4: MW. That set the bar for COD games.
I agree. COD 4 was the most fun I've ever had playing a FPS game. Both story mode and multiplayer games are excellent.
Black Ops looks amazing from what I've seen. I hope the attack dogs aren't as annoying as in WaW. :)
The best was COD 4: MW. That set the bar for COD games.
I agree. COD 4 was the most fun I've ever had playing a FPS game. Both story mode and multiplayer games are excellent.
Black Ops looks amazing from what I've seen. I hope the attack dogs aren't as annoying as in WaW. :)
CaoCao
Apr 25, 07:12 PM
Is anyone mad as the two *******s who actually beat this person up? I am. They should be charged with aggravated assault.
How about attempted murder?
How about attempted murder?
skunk
Apr 22, 03:15 PM
Yeah, we can tell.It's nice to be understood so well. I have given you a +1.
more...
Sounds Good
Apr 21, 09:23 PM
When is Windows 8 due out?
sesnir
Mar 28, 07:23 PM
Is there a sign-up page, or are all apps automatically considered? Not that I'd ever win, but still ;)
more...
BongoBanger
Apr 11, 03:18 AM
It was funny. Stop crying.
leekohler
Apr 27, 01:53 PM
I really never meant to come across as having any sort of problem with or thinking anything less of transgendered people.... But I can understand how Mord would get that impression given some of the previous posts in the thread...
I think it's all cool now. :)
I think it's all cool now. :)
more...
MacVault
Sep 12, 07:25 AM
I can't imagine why Apple would have an event like this if there was going to be only Disney content available.
iOS v Android
May 3, 02:04 PM
Why is it that Google always touts how open is so good, then they realize that, oh, guess we should tighten things up a bit, maybe being too open is not such a good thing.
this has nothing to do with google or openess. it is the carriers restricting access to the apps. This is the carriers and their policies. They see the apps as a threat to the plans they sell so they blocked them
this has nothing to do with google or openess. it is the carriers restricting access to the apps. This is the carriers and their policies. They see the apps as a threat to the plans they sell so they blocked them
more...
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 8, 01:12 PM
This is standard practice by their SOP (Standard operating platform) according to company policy. I know, because I used to work at Best Buy. Trust me, there are a lot of other shady things that happen when they say they "hold" for the Sunday ad. Things such as holding the product for friends and family and using the EPPI application. Although, the iPad is already at Cost, so there is really no discount on the product but rather for the accessories.
Just buy online and not through Best Buy. I refuse to buy anything from Best Buy because of their ethics and practices.
You must not buy ANYTHING than.
Just buy online and not through Best Buy. I refuse to buy anything from Best Buy because of their ethics and practices.
You must not buy ANYTHING than.
0815
Apr 6, 07:52 AM
An app that brings all the things I hate together. [... removed bashing ...]
So why bother? If you don't like it, don't download it. There are thousands of apps in the store that I don't like or have no interest in. No need to comment everywhere how much I dislike them and how much every user of those is a brainless idiot. there is a very simple solution with basically two options:
(1) if you (think you) like it -> download and try
(2) if you don't like it, don't download it
It is not that this app is forced to be installed on your phone. It is your choice.
I always enjoyed the creative iAds, I downloaded the app and found to my surprise that it even shows me (in the US) some of the European ads which I otherwise wouldn't have seen.
The only thing I wonder about is: is Apple getting money if people click on the ads? (my guess would be no)
So why bother? If you don't like it, don't download it. There are thousands of apps in the store that I don't like or have no interest in. No need to comment everywhere how much I dislike them and how much every user of those is a brainless idiot. there is a very simple solution with basically two options:
(1) if you (think you) like it -> download and try
(2) if you don't like it, don't download it
It is not that this app is forced to be installed on your phone. It is your choice.
I always enjoyed the creative iAds, I downloaded the app and found to my surprise that it even shows me (in the US) some of the European ads which I otherwise wouldn't have seen.
The only thing I wonder about is: is Apple getting money if people click on the ads? (my guess would be no)
more...
Apple 26.2
Apr 25, 07:35 PM
Ugh, that thing is hideous looking... I seriously think I'll punch the first person I see rocking one.
:D
:D
Aniej
Jan 5, 04:11 PM
I didn't see any replies to my idea about posting a counter to tick of the DD:HH:MM:SS until climax, I mean Keynote.;) Usually I take that as a bad sign, but you know how you all get when you have blue b..., you can't think straight. So is this idea worth pursuing, kinda like the widgets available, but might be nice to have directly tied to the link with no spoilers.
more...
apfhex
Jan 7, 07:00 PM
We're incorporating near-real time photos in this year's MacRumors coverage... so it shuold be pretty enjoyable.... barring any unforseen circumstances. :)
Sounds AWESOME. I usually follow MR plus one or two other popular news or blog sites. I think I recall last year Engadget or one of them has some photos online before the end of the keynote, which was nice.
Well, there are some benefits to being in California where the event is happening.
Still, when the keynote stream first goes online it can be very difficult to watch, probably even if you live in SF. I usually don't end up getting to see the whole thing until later in the afternoon.
Is it possible to download the entire keynote file (.avi) to my hard disk instead of viewing it streamed? Is it possible at all with Safari, or do I need Firefox and some extension/plugin?
No (and it's not an AVI, it's a H.264 encoded MOV). You're going to have to wait for someone to capture the stream and post it somewhere as a downloadable file.
Sounds AWESOME. I usually follow MR plus one or two other popular news or blog sites. I think I recall last year Engadget or one of them has some photos online before the end of the keynote, which was nice.
Well, there are some benefits to being in California where the event is happening.
Still, when the keynote stream first goes online it can be very difficult to watch, probably even if you live in SF. I usually don't end up getting to see the whole thing until later in the afternoon.
Is it possible to download the entire keynote file (.avi) to my hard disk instead of viewing it streamed? Is it possible at all with Safari, or do I need Firefox and some extension/plugin?
No (and it's not an AVI, it's a H.264 encoded MOV). You're going to have to wait for someone to capture the stream and post it somewhere as a downloadable file.
neiltc13
Sep 12, 08:37 AM
It has to come back soon, think of all the sales they're losing!
more...
thisisahughes
Mar 29, 12:58 AM
Could they... award themselves?
FaceTime or Xcode?
FaceTime or Xcode?
AppliedVisual
Oct 17, 11:01 AM
HD DVD for movies and Blu-Ray for data. Problem solved.
Um, no....
At 30GB max on HD-DVD, even with a good VC1 transfer, 3 hour and longer features must start sacrificing quality to fit. In other words, films like "Titanic" are going to run into the same shortcomings on HD-DVD as they did with DVD.
There's other reasons to choose BluRay and this whole format war would be compltely non-existant had Sony released their product nearly a year ago when they first promised and if it had actually worked. Now they keep fumbling the ball and losing out to an inferior format at every turn.
In the end, we'll see universal players as a solution, but I doubt HD-DVD vs. BluRay will be solved before the next big format comes along. All the pieces are in place to manufacture a universal player, but Sony's Blu-Ray licensing agreements specifically forbid the inclusion of support for HD-DVD, DVD-Audio and other competing formats on the same device. It's questionable whether or not this is legal, Sony and Philips tried it with DVD+R and the exclusive licensing failed. It will only be a matter of time before someone challenges the Sony licensing. Unfortunately, the few companies already in the best position to produce a universal player (Samsung, Panasoic, LG, etc...) are already Blu-Ray allies. So it may take a bit more time.
Personally, I would rather just have digital downloads from a high speed download service and store them on my own storage whether it is on DVDs, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD as data. For large downloads, I would like to go to a local video store and download them to my laptop using Firewire 800/400 or USB but that is probably too far in the future.
Direct downloads would definitely be welcome, as long as there is the option to write them to some form of tangible media like an optical disc. There's also the issue of download times and quality. A top-notch VC1 transfer on HD-DVD or BluRay at 1080p is going to occupy 25+ GB of space. That's a significant download for any conventional broadband connection. VC1 or H.264 versions of films at near-DVD quality like we'll find in the iTunes store are OK compared to DVD and are a good start, but I think we're still just a couple years away from it really happening with HD on a broad scale. The infrastructure is being constructed now, products like iTV, iPod and yes even the Zune, will pave the way for this to happen. So we're on our way...
I think ultimately what will happen is films/videos will become entirely on-demand. Users will be able to connect directly to major studios and have on-demand access to their entire catalog of every film ever created. Sites like iTunes will still serve a purpose as a portal or gateway to access multiple catalogs from different studios all in one place with a common interface. Probably still several years off and broadband and widespread wireless access methods need to be enhanced a bit, but this is no doubt where we're headed.
Um, no....
At 30GB max on HD-DVD, even with a good VC1 transfer, 3 hour and longer features must start sacrificing quality to fit. In other words, films like "Titanic" are going to run into the same shortcomings on HD-DVD as they did with DVD.
There's other reasons to choose BluRay and this whole format war would be compltely non-existant had Sony released their product nearly a year ago when they first promised and if it had actually worked. Now they keep fumbling the ball and losing out to an inferior format at every turn.
In the end, we'll see universal players as a solution, but I doubt HD-DVD vs. BluRay will be solved before the next big format comes along. All the pieces are in place to manufacture a universal player, but Sony's Blu-Ray licensing agreements specifically forbid the inclusion of support for HD-DVD, DVD-Audio and other competing formats on the same device. It's questionable whether or not this is legal, Sony and Philips tried it with DVD+R and the exclusive licensing failed. It will only be a matter of time before someone challenges the Sony licensing. Unfortunately, the few companies already in the best position to produce a universal player (Samsung, Panasoic, LG, etc...) are already Blu-Ray allies. So it may take a bit more time.
Personally, I would rather just have digital downloads from a high speed download service and store them on my own storage whether it is on DVDs, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD as data. For large downloads, I would like to go to a local video store and download them to my laptop using Firewire 800/400 or USB but that is probably too far in the future.
Direct downloads would definitely be welcome, as long as there is the option to write them to some form of tangible media like an optical disc. There's also the issue of download times and quality. A top-notch VC1 transfer on HD-DVD or BluRay at 1080p is going to occupy 25+ GB of space. That's a significant download for any conventional broadband connection. VC1 or H.264 versions of films at near-DVD quality like we'll find in the iTunes store are OK compared to DVD and are a good start, but I think we're still just a couple years away from it really happening with HD on a broad scale. The infrastructure is being constructed now, products like iTV, iPod and yes even the Zune, will pave the way for this to happen. So we're on our way...
I think ultimately what will happen is films/videos will become entirely on-demand. Users will be able to connect directly to major studios and have on-demand access to their entire catalog of every film ever created. Sites like iTunes will still serve a purpose as a portal or gateway to access multiple catalogs from different studios all in one place with a common interface. Probably still several years off and broadband and widespread wireless access methods need to be enhanced a bit, but this is no doubt where we're headed.
.jpeg "cats wallpaper. Funny Cats")
quigleybc
Sep 9, 01:10 AM
I agree with you quigley.
Hip-Hop is very difficult to perform live. No matter how good they sound on the album live just isn't the same.
I thought Kanye did great with what he had though. And he is definately the best thing to happen to Hip-Hop since the Chronic 2001 was released.
Agreed, since the Chronic..
Great Locations think alike. (Van)
Too many haters on here sometimes.
I wasn't a huge fan of Kanye with the first album, but this new one is something special I think
One of those albums that comes along and changes sh#t
In between, I gotta bring up Outkast as well, just groups/artists that take things in different directions
Which is why I saw a connection with him performing at the event.
It didn't seem very rehearsed for one thing. And the dj wasn't really cuttin in and out on time, but Kanye was shakin it like James Brown. He was really dancing hard...kind of funny at times actually, and I think him dancing so hard also affected his vocals..
Anyway, Kanye west is a good thing...IMO
and I was just kidding about metallica they're aiiight :D
Hip-Hop is very difficult to perform live. No matter how good they sound on the album live just isn't the same.
I thought Kanye did great with what he had though. And he is definately the best thing to happen to Hip-Hop since the Chronic 2001 was released.
Agreed, since the Chronic..
Great Locations think alike. (Van)
Too many haters on here sometimes.
I wasn't a huge fan of Kanye with the first album, but this new one is something special I think
One of those albums that comes along and changes sh#t
In between, I gotta bring up Outkast as well, just groups/artists that take things in different directions
Which is why I saw a connection with him performing at the event.
It didn't seem very rehearsed for one thing. And the dj wasn't really cuttin in and out on time, but Kanye was shakin it like James Brown. He was really dancing hard...kind of funny at times actually, and I think him dancing so hard also affected his vocals..
Anyway, Kanye west is a good thing...IMO
and I was just kidding about metallica they're aiiight :D
leekohler
May 5, 04:30 PM
You're better than this Lee.
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
There are completely different cultural factors that play into this as well. You cannot blame guns for this, you have to blame people. There are underlying issues that cause this type of violence that we are not dealing with. Guns are not the problem, our culture is. Treat the disease, not the symptom, or your results will continue to be the same.
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
There are completely different cultural factors that play into this as well. You cannot blame guns for this, you have to blame people. There are underlying issues that cause this type of violence that we are not dealing with. Guns are not the problem, our culture is. Treat the disease, not the symptom, or your results will continue to be the same.
balamw
Oct 5, 08:23 AM
Your average ipod owner could not possibly give a flying %^@$ about how Fairplay's DRM compares to other mp3 players' DRM. Talking about "DRM transparent" like its something that Joe Consumer has any clue about is delusional at best.
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
pmau
Apr 29, 05:13 PM
I first thought that fullscreen applications are not the way to go. But using Mail and Safari in fullscreen is so much fun... I'm always diappointed booting back into Snow Leopard
darwen
Oct 10, 11:01 PM
What a shocker. Can this really be considered news anymore?
I saw this on Engadget a couple days ago... it is seriously getting old. Engadget does not have any good sources at apple.
I saw this on Engadget a couple days ago... it is seriously getting old. Engadget does not have any good sources at apple.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
No comments:
Post a Comment