Apple said to have settled on supplier for tablet display

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 101
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post


    The MBA is already as small as it can be. (for now)



    However, Apple could base the internals on the iPhone - with bumped up ARM processing - and provide a much thinner/lighter 10" "iBook Air". Touch screen of course. I expect it could easily do everything the iPhone does, including the movie editing we've heard rumoured for the iPhone. Throw in pages and it could be very useful.



    Not a netbook as we know it - it wouldn't run regular Mac programs But a small notebook, light and power efficient, for surfing the web and word processing etc... could be interesting.



    Atom would be a much better fit in the MBA than ARM, but the MBA is considerably faster than any of those netbooks with Atom CPUs.



    For those powerful components for their size, the MBA can?t have a 10? screen and be that thin, but those components (the SFF C2D CPU) could fit into a thicker device. This would mean the battery would be less pancaked, therefor taking up less of the footprint and you could use a 2.5? HDD.



    That said, an $800 10? MacBook looks to have no viable market without some extra ingredient, which I haven?t seen stated on these forums.
  • Reply 82 of 101
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,307member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Atom would be a much better fit in the MBA than ARM, but the MBA is considerably faster than any of those netbooks with Atom CPUs.



    For those powerful components for their size, the MBA can’t have a 10” screen and be that thin, but those components (the SFF C2D CPU) could fit into a thicker device. This would mean the battery would be less pancaked, therefor taking up less of the footprint and you could use a 2.5” HDD.



    That said, an $800 10” MacBook looks to have no viable market without some extra ingredient, which I haven’t seen stated on these forums.



    If it does come out, I for one bet SJ hits another home run.



    Just for my own use if it had a virtual keyboard I can type on, wi-fi and 3G with phone built in too, it would be my tool of choice when on business trips. It is a tethered mini laptop and phone and entertainment center with gestures and slips in my new carrying belt pocket no doubt made especially for new Apple device and available from stores near you ... what's not to like?



    I realize the 'phone part' is when alone and can talk on speaker as it were, not suggesting holding to ear! lol. I'd still take my iPhone too.
  • Reply 83 of 101
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) What part of my statement suggested any combination was my "dream machine"?



    2) A viable market is made up by the few. Unless Apple is going to focus heavily on commercial there is no viable consumer market for a tablet that is just a tablet.



    3) Was the Moses comment you being witty? Besides the term tablet I don't see a connection between the first and second parts of your post.



    edit out
  • Reply 84 of 101
    macgregormacgregor Posts: 1,434member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GCS View Post


    The damn Green Peace hippies don't care about the slug either - they care about controling your life and returning to the 14th century (something they have in common with the People of Peace).



    Libertarians are so cute when they over-react.
  • Reply 85 of 101
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post


    Libertarians are so cute when they over-react.



    It is not over reacting when you object to being forced to do things that are not based on sound science or does not take into account the negatives of the alternatives. One good example here being the obsession with PVC's which is certainly not a non issue but has to be balanced against the alternatives. It is one thing to exhibit leadership and develop alternatives; it is another thing to bully an organization into using materials that result in a regression in quality and safety. This is frankly what green peace is up to.



    It isn't like I'm for pollution as I spend enough time in the great outdoors to appreciate that it is in many ways fragile. However nature will be around far longer than man will be on this planet. Not everything in this world is as easy to make virtually pollution free as a hammer, nor last almost infinitely. We need to strive to do better with items that do have long term dangers but it is a mistake to assume that there is always an alternative.



    At times it well takes time to resolve issues that are known to a product. One example is smoke detectors which researchers have only recently found safe alternatives to the dangerous materials within.



    Like wise with global warming, if Green Peace really wanted to do something useful they would promote the development of advance alternative energy solutions. The field of batteries is wide open at the moment and if new tech could enter into the market unencumbered by restrictive patents and licensing we could see a real market place grow up around an alternative to lead acid. I like the idea of an electric car but I'm not so stupid as to not realize how big of a negative they are currently in the northeast. Frankly Green Peace has a lot of money that they could use in a more constructive way then they currently are. Beating on Apple simply doesn't endear them to me at all.







    Dave
  • Reply 86 of 101
    macgregormacgregor Posts: 1,434member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It is not over reacting when you object to being forced to do things that are not based on sound science or does not take into account the negatives of the alternatives.



    Yeah, but it IS over-reacting to call Greenpeace a bunch of "hippies." It IS over-reacting to claim that global warming is not an important issue to take responsibility for even if it is only 50% caused by human release of greenhouse gases. It is NOT edifying to make Greenpeace into two words.



    I appreciate that you are not pro-pollution, but a free and fair capitalist system needs to have watchdog groups and educated consumers if it is to be a responsible economic system.



    I believe there needs to be a balance between economic, social and ecological processes. Laissez faire capitalists tend to over-emphasize economic capital. Marxist/Socialists tend to over-emphasize social responsibility. Greenpeace tends to over-emphasize ecological capital.
  • Reply 87 of 101
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    IF

    Apple would make the tablet that is a small version of a fully loaded mbp, with no lite anything. I mean full OSX and full multi touch also .



    THEN i say that apple will have a monster seller on its hands



    I'll have to disagree on 2 levels

    1) If they make a tablet with full MBP internals - it'll be too heavy, and expensive.

    2) If they use full OSX, they may be subject to the same problems Windows tablets (and even Windows mobile) has.



    MBA internals are a little lighter of course but come at a cost. Unfortunately that's just laws of physics. So they have to cut back the speed requirements on Intel, or perhaps use ARM chips, if they want a nice light portable tablet.



    OSX itself is a problem though - even if the speed was fine. If a tablet can run regular OSX applications, then you have to make sure that every interaction normally accomplished via mouse and keyboard has an equivalent on the tablet. Take Windows Mobile - requiring a stylus to click the start menu to access parts of the system isn't making an interface perfect for mobile phones.



    And if the tablet runs OSX programs without modification, then nobody bothers to design for the new interface. It actually takes a step backwards. For EVERY regular OSX app you use, the thought "the only thing this is missing is a keyboard and mouse" applies. That thought does occur for some iPhone apps now, but there are also many apps where a keyboard would get in the way - it created a new paradigm.
  • Reply 88 of 101
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post


    Yeah, but it IS over-reacting to call Greenpeace a bunch of "hippies." It IS over-reacting to claim that global warming is not an important issue to take responsibility for even if it is only 50% caused by human release of greenhouse gases. It is NOT edifying to make Greenpeace into two words.



    I find the ?green peace hippie? argument funny as it looks like I started it with an off the cuff comment.



    Anyway, global warming is an issue to take seriously regardless of the cause. Even if humans have had absolutely no effect on the climate we still need to take it seriously and work to enact any changes needed to maintain the homeostasis that we know.



    I never understood the blame game of climate change. Just make it stay the same or there will be a lot of migrating and a lot of hungry people.
  • Reply 89 of 101
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post


    I'll have to disagree on 2 levels

    1) If they make a tablet with full MBP internals - it'll be too heavy, and expensive.

    2) If they use full OSX, they may be subject to the same problems Windows tablets (and even Windows mobile) has.



    MBA internals are a little lighter of course but come at a cost. Unfortunately that's just laws of physics. So they have to cut back the speed requirements on Intel, or perhaps use ARM chips, if they want a nice light portable tablet.



    OSX itself is a problem though - even if the speed was fine. If a tablet can run regular OSX applications, then you have to make sure that every interaction normally accomplished via mouse and keyboard has an equivalent on the tablet. Take Windows Mobile - requiring a stylus to click the start menu to access parts of the system isn't making an interface perfect for mobile phones.



    And if the tablet runs OSX programs without modification, then nobody bothers to design for the new interface. It actually takes a step backwards. For EVERY regular OSX app you use, the thought "the only thing this is missing is a keyboard and mouse" applies. That thought does occur for some iPhone apps now, but there are also many apps where a keyboard would get in the way - it created a new paradigm.



    You have made a few valid points . I seem to remember that steve jobs BE/NEXT was working on a tablet like multi touch device, right before he re-joined apple. And since his rejoining the unix based OSX came about over-time and the multi touch iphone also hit the market.



    But at the start of it all isn't it possible that the multi touch was originally made for a larger screen. I don't know software so well but isn't the whole point of OSX is its ease of integrated use in form and function looking of course forward and backwards.



    Anyway this would be my dream machine [/QUOTE]
  • Reply 90 of 101
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I find the ?green peace hippie? argument funny as it looks like I started it with an off the cuff comment.



    It may have been off the cuff but it is accurate. Greenpeace has a very regressive stance in place of rational solutions.

    Quote:



    Anyway, global warming is an issue to take seriously regardless of the cause. Even if humans have had absolutely no effect on the climate we still need to take it seriously and work to enact any changes needed to maintain the homeostasis that we know.



    Yes it is very important to understand what is going on right now. More importantly we need to know what the human component is if any. The "if any" part is important because so much of the current science is very bad science and is often politically motivated.



    As to homeostasis that elwoukd be fantastic if our problems are manmade. The problem is that there are good indications that this isn't a manmade problem.

    Quote:



    I never understood the blame game of climate change. Just make it stay the same or there will be a lot of migrating and a lot of hungry people.



    The problem is if we take Greenpeaces narrow minded approach we could end up making some very bad decisions. Decisions that will be expensive and regressive.

    As to hungery people that is what we invested all that money in nuclearer weapons for. Yeah the world is going to get uglier but it doesn't meanwe won't survive.



    By the way Apple could do a lot for their public image if they kicked Gore off the board. He just isn't credible.







    Dave
  • Reply 91 of 101
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It may have been off the cuff but it is accurate. Greenpeace has a very regressive stance in place of rational solutions.



    Yes it is very important to understand what is going on right now. More importantly we need to know what the human component is if any. The "if any" part is important because so much of the current science is very bad science and is often politically motivated.



    As to homeostasis that elwoukd be fantastic if our problems are manmade. The problem is that there are good indications that this isn't a manmade problem.



    The problem is if we take Greenpeaces narrow minded approach we could end up making some very bad decisions. Decisions that will be expensive and regressive.

    As to hungery people that is what we invested all that money in nuclearer weapons for. Yeah the world is going to get uglier but it doesn't meanwe won't survive.



    My point, and I?m sure it?s not one Greenpeace shares, but if we find that the climate is in a natural cycle to get much warmer or much cooler (and let?s assume for a moment that humans have had no effect on this cycle) we should do anything and everything we can to revert any changes to a state that is most agreeable to our requirements.



    Knowing the cause is important, but finding a solution regardless of the cause is also important, especially if it turns out that humans have had little to no effect on the planet because then it becomes an issue that will not be easily changed by simply policing our carbon footprints. I really hope it is our fault for that very reason.
  • Reply 92 of 101
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It is not over reacting when you object to being forced to do things that are not based on sound science or does not take into account the negatives of the alternatives. One good example here being the obsession with PVC's which is certainly not a non issue but has to be balanced against the alternatives. It is one thing to exhibit leadership and develop alternatives; it is another thing to bully an organization into using materials that result in a regression in quality and safety. This is frankly what green peace is up to.



    It isn't like I'm for pollution as I spend enough time in the great outdoors to appreciate that it is in many ways fragile. However nature will be around far longer than man will be on this planet. Not everything in this world is as easy to make virtually pollution free as a hammer, nor last almost infinitely. We need to strive to do better with items that do have long term dangers but it is a mistake to assume that there is always an alternative.



    At times it well takes time to resolve issues that are known to a product. One example is smoke detectors which researchers have only recently found safe alternatives to the dangerous materials within.



    Like wise with global warming, if Green Peace really wanted to do something useful they would promote the development of advance alternative energy solutions. The field of batteries is wide open at the moment and if new tech could enter into the market unencumbered by restrictive patents and licensing we could see a real market place grow up around an alternative to lead acid. I like the idea of an electric car but I'm not so stupid as to not realize how big of a negative they are currently in the northeast. Frankly Green Peace has a lot of money that they could use in a more constructive way then they currently are. Beating on Apple simply doesn't endear them to me at all.







    Dave



    I love green peace. That fresh clean glass of water is their gift to you dave . Drink it .

    So dave go back 40 yrs . BEFORE we over reacted and banned lead. In all products in America . BANNED.



    The terrible effects of lead poisoning was felt all around the globe.Terrible effects that we can date back to roman times . Millions of innocent children whose brains are stunted and will never fully develop because of lead was in the air and water and even paint And the banning of lead was only a small part of the CLEAN AIR AND WATER ACT OF 1970 . and today we are almost lead free.I remember way back then dave. You were so upset that we wanted to ban lead. Whole industries will go bankrupt you claimed. You pot head hippies are crazy you said. Remember dave, because you should. Today over 2 billion people live a lead free life . billions more live a lead reduced life. lead is still a WORLD WIDE KILLER THOU.



    Sadly dave you now breathe cleaner air because of those green peace people you despise so much. Your children can drink the water.



    40 yrs later and our over-all environment is much better . But dave we have so much more to do. Why won't you join us? What has made you so in-flexible about a clean safe world ?? It's not fuzzy science that carbon and methane raise global temp. We have real proof dude .



    The science is rock solid sound . We can see from ice core samples back over 100,000 yrs dave. What the air was like. Global warming is here. And we must reduce carbon and methane right now.



    We can conserve like we did during ww2.

    We can right now this minute turn off lights .Walk two blocks to buy milk.



    People who think like you dave are a mystery to me . You mention PVC's ? Why Pvc is a killer. Extremely rare cancers have sprung up around workers who use pvc.

    One very very rare cancer type<stomach ?> had 5 reported cases worldwide in 1970. 14 cases were reported 7 yrs ago in a tight 100 mile cluster in south east USA. All the workers had been exposed to large amounts of pvc. No one ever said ban pvc. All that was said was protect the workers from pvc exposure. We even said please.



    Today exposure to pvc is tightly controlled. Surely this ok with you.



    peace



    9





    Ps .. green peace beat on apple for yrs

    good .

    Because apple now is the greenest cradle to grave computer maker on this planet.. Bar none !

    Hey dave apple IS listening .You are not

    .
  • Reply 93 of 101
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    isn't it possible that the multi touch was originally made for a larger screen.



    Definitely possible. In fact, I believe it was once said that an Apple team working on a touch pad device were moved across to design the iPhone.



    The thing is that, contrary to common sense , Apple needs to force people into a new way of interacting. Sometimes you have to break the past to move forwards. I agree that multitouch from the iPhone will be very relevant to a Pad device - and it may well be okay for the device to be iPhone compatible but not Mac compatible.



    ps

    OS2 is a good example. IBM said that OS2 ran Windows better than Windows, and for the most part Windows developers said "brilliant, we don't need to make an OS2 version of our program!".
  • Reply 94 of 101
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    I love green peace. That fresh clean glass of water is their gift to you dave . Drink it .

    So dave go back 40 yrs . BEFORE we over reacted and banned lead. In all products in America . BANNED.



    Lead hasn't been banned completely from all products. It has been regulated to keep it out of the air and water. Don't believe then walk out to your car and check the battery.

    Quote:

    The terrible effects of lead poisoning was felt all around the globe.Terrible effects that we can date back to roman times . Millions of innocent children whose brains are stunted and will never fully develop because of lead was in the air and water and even paint And the banning of lead was only a small part of the CLEAN AIR AND WATER ACT OF 1970 . and today we are almost lead free.I remember way back then dave. You were so upset that we wanted to ban lead. Whole industries will go bankrupt you claimed. You pot head hippies are crazy you said. Remember dave, because you should. Today over 2 billion people live a lead free life . billions more live a lead reduced life. lead is still a WORLD WIDE KILLER THOU.



    You are really displaying your ignorance now as there was little resistance to pulling lead out of certain products when the dangers became known and verified by sound science. It is silky to compare the issues surrounding the regulation of lead with the so called science surrounding global warming. It safe to say there is a wide gulf in the quality of the science. Much of what the global warming platform is based on can't even be called science.

    Quote:



    Sadly dave you now breathe cleaner air because of those green peace people you despise so much. Your children can drink the water.



    Actually there where many environmental groups involved in getting the clean air and water acts and following laws passed. Greenpeace really just tagged along for the ride. In some cases Greenpeaces ignorant behaviour actually had a negative impact on progress. It is no surprise that many environmental groups look down on Greenoeaces as a simple collection of misfits and ignorant people.

    Quote:



    40 yrs later and our over-all environment is much better . But dave we have so much more to do. Why won't you join us? What has made you so in-flexible about a clean safe world ?? It's not fuzzy science that carbon and methane raise global temp. We have real proof dude .



    Are you really sure about that "proof". Many of us aren't. Frankly what passes for research, with respect to global warming, would get you thrown out if most ligitimate science conferences. So much of the so called global warming facts are nothing more than politically motivated and twisted talking points that have no basis in fact what so ever.



    You claim I'm against a clean safe world but obviously you don't know me very well at all. Frankly I've done more for the environment than the average person and I support responsible organizations that really want to help the environment. Greepeace isn't one of those responsible organizations though.

    Quote:



    The science is rock solid sound . We can see from ice core samples back over 100,000 yrs dave. What the air was like. Global warming is here. And we must reduce carbon and methane right now.



    Well if the science was sound I'd might support your position but it isn't, not even remotely.

    Quote:

    We can conserve like we did during ww2.

    We can right now this minute turn off lights .Walk two blocks to buy milk.



    I'm not sure if you are just stupid or don't leave the Greenpeace compound enough to see how others besides yourself live. The average person is buying compact flourescents and insulating their homes. They are taking other measures to conserve energy. Even Bush, the president Greenpeace loved to chatise, signed in a law to phase out the incadescent lamp, with I night add full support of many environmentalist. It is a way to move forward with respect to the environment.



    You however demonstrate what so damns Greenpeace, that is the attitude that we need to regress to save ourselves. The reality is that is death, the planet population is such that we need technological advancement to support it.

    Quote:

    People who think like you dave are a mystery to me . You mention PVC's ? Why Pvc is a killer. Extremely rare cancers have sprung up around workers who use pvc.

    One very very rare cancer type<stomach ?> had 5 reported cases worldwide in 1970. 14 cases were reported 7 yrs ago in a tight 100 mile cluster in south east USA. All the workers had been exposed to large amounts of pvc. No one ever said ban pvc. All that was said was protect the workers from pvc exposure. We even said please.



    See here is the problem you have no proof at all. If Greenpeace was really concerned they would higher the researchers to develop the sound science to either support or disprove their theories. Instead they attack Apple for using PVC. Does that make sense to you?



    It was done for lead, really no body doubts the science that says lead is a significant hazzard. On the other hand you have no evidence at all that PVC is even a problem. The reality is that petrochemical plants have all sorts of questionable materials flying around. That is if the prblem is even the plants in question and not a local natural environmental issue.



    So cut the BS and generate the proof.

    Quote:



    Today exposure to pvc is tightly controlled. Surely this ok with you.



    peace



    9





    Ps .. green peace beat on apple for yrs

    good .

    Because apple now is the greenest cradle to grave computer maker on this planet.. Bar none !

    Hey dave apple IS listening .You are not

    .



    If I can spend the rest of my life avoiding lunatics then I will. You say you are a Greenpeace supporter but I have to wonder if you support the local thugs in town the same way? Let's face it Grenpeace and your local thugs employ some of the very same techniques to maintain their positions.



    Maybe you think it is fine to beat on Apple over PVCs even though the material is of no hazzard at all to the end user. Does it make you feel good? I don't however see it as responsible behaviour at all, especially when it may lead to negative product quality. Using Greenpeaces logic they should go after the auto manufactures for using lead acid batteries. After all they have lead and acid in them.



    Frankly I've had enough of this conversation as you are not likely to wake up to the fact that Greenpeace is an organization more concerned about itself than the environment.







    Dave
  • Reply 95 of 101
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    The science is rock solid sound .



    This is utterly off-topic.



    But it does appear that some scientists don't believe that the scientific case for anthopogenic global warming is quite as rock-solid-sound as Bruce is suggesting.



    This former NASA guy, for instance, makes an interesting case.



    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/2...lem/#more-7993



    Perhaps the comment space in the above blog might be a better place to continue the discussion.



    C.
  • Reply 96 of 101
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Lead hasn't been banned completely from all products. It has been regulated to keep it out of the air and water. Don't believe then walk out to your car and check the battery.



    You are really displaying your ignorance now as there was little resistance to pulling lead out of certain products when the dangers became known and verified by sound science. It is silky to compare the issues surrounding the regulation of lead with the so called science surrounding global warming. It safe to say there is a wide gulf in the quality of the science. Much of what the global warming platform is based on can't even be called science.



    Actually there where many environmental groups involved in getting the clean air and water acts and following laws passed. Greenpeace really just tagged along for the ride. In some cases Greenpeaces ignorant behaviour actually had a negative impact on progress. It is no surprise that many environmental groups look down on Greenoeaces as a simple collection of misfits and ignorant people.



    Are you really sure about that "proof". Many of us aren't. Frankly what passes for research, with respect to global warming, would get you thrown out if most ligitimate science conferences. So much of the so called global warming facts are nothing more than politically motivated and twisted talking points that have no basis in fact what so ever.



    You claim I'm against a clean safe world but obviously you don't know me very well at all. Frankly I've done more for the environment than the average person and I support responsible organizations that really want to help the environment. Greepeace isn't one of those responsible organizations though.



    Well if the science was sound I'd might support your position but it isn't, not even remotely.



    I'm not sure if you are just stupid or don't leave the Greenpeace compound enough to see how others besides yourself live. The average person is buying compact flourescents and insulating their homes. They are taking other measures to conserve energy. Even Bush, the president Greenpeace loved to chatise, signed in a law to phase out the incadescent lamp, with I night add full support of many environmentalist. It is a way to move forward with respect to the environment.



    You however demonstrate what so damns Greenpeace, that is the attitude that we need to regress to save ourselves. The reality is that is death, the planet population is such that we need technological advancement to support it.



    See here is the problem you have no proof at all. If Greenpeace was really concerned they would higher the researchers to develop the sound science to either support or disprove their theories. Instead they attack Apple for using PVC. Does that make sense to you?



    It was done for lead, really no body doubts the science that says lead is a significant hazzard. On the other hand you have no evidence at all that PVC is even a problem. The reality is that petrochemical plants have all sorts of questionable materials flying around. That is if the prblem is even the plants in question and not a local natural environmental issue.



    So cut the BS and generate the proof.





    If I can spend the rest of my life avoiding lunatics then I will. You say you are a Greenpeace supporter but I have to wonder if you support the local thugs in town the same way? Let's face it Grenpeace and your local thugs employ some of the very same techniques to maintain their positions.



    Maybe you think it is fine to beat on Apple over PVCs even though the material is of no hazzard at all to the end user. Does it make you feel good? I don't however see it as responsible behaviour at all, especially when it may lead to negative product quality. Using Greenpeaces logic they should go after the auto manufactures for using lead acid batteries. After all they have lead and acid in them.



    Frankly I've had enough of this conversation as you are not likely to wake up to the fact that Greenpeace is an organization more concerned about itself than the environment.







    Dave



    dave I apologize for the tone of my post last night . Sorry .



    First off we live in a lead free society . It may be inside a few products,but that's it. Dave you missed the whole point about lead . When the law came about many people screamed about how bad it would be to ban it …



    Just like wearing seat-belts . We now know much better .



    i do not blindly follow green-peace. so dave forget greenpeace for moment. you seem real pissed off at them

    I might also have misunderstood your stand on global warming .



    Concerning PVC. The rare cancer clusters is proof enough. BUT only in the PVC factory. as a end product PVC poses no risk. and anyone who says it does is wrong PVC at that point is inert. in the USA PVC factories all the worker safe guards are now in place, to keep the workers safe. so it really is a non-issue, moot



    And compact bulbs are only as good as the house wiring, on older houses they burn out fast .



    And now concerning the so called science of global warming .Dave, sadly it is inter-mingled with the natural warming. It always will be . I will state right now that the human race with in reason must reduce its burning of fossil fuels. And do it fast.



    If we are CORRECT about the danger, then we not only save the planet, but we also save a ton of money and create a ton of green jobs back home . We would have a place to live with cleaner air and almost free energy. Wind solar geo-thermal and wave .



    We would of course cradle to grave build everything that we now build.



    It does not take a rocket scientist to know that wind/solar/geo farms are better than the air polluting coal plants and gasoline cars .



    And americans as a race will in the future live poorer. That is the price of global warming fight. We have to reduce ourselves . Take more walks and less plane rides.



    BUT say we are WRONG and there is no global warming. Lets say that all this warming data is all part of the natural swing of things . WE still get all the benefits I mentioned. And to boot we wont be giving our energy dollars over sea's anymore .



    A win-win situation.





    peace dude



    9
  • Reply 97 of 101
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    This is utterly off-topic.



    But it does appear that some scientists don't believe that the scientific case for anthopogenic global warming is quite as rock-solid-sound as Bruce is suggesting.



    This former NASA guy, for instance, makes an interesting case.



    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/2...lem/#more-7993



    Perhaps the comment space in the above blog might be a better place to continue the discussion.

    lot

    C.



    Well, I am not so smart as you guys I guess, I do read a lot and have followed the green earth movement for over 45 yrs. . Ice sheets landlocked for over 300.000 yrs. are now floating around. So much ice has melted in Alaska that the ice-compressed ground has risen Ft 6 in some places in the last 40 yrs.

    6 feet .



    Ice core sample from around the globe show a steady parts per million amount of carbon,methane and other gases . For something like 97;000 yrs. we have a steady amount of these gases. The line on the graph is almost flat.





    They also matched when they could with tree core samples and other tests as well. These tests were done to test the validity of the ice core test.



    So 97;000 yrs. of steady eddy finding.s UNTIL WE REACH 1880. And from 1880 until now the ice core samples from around the world show a steadily rising amount of carbon and methane and other gases in the atmosphere. And in the last 40 yrs. the increases have increased even more .



    These dedicated people who do these core sample tests make no bones about their findings. They have no agenda at all they are silent almost to the number, they quietly when prodded point out drowning polar bears, or MT. Fuji having a brown summit .



    On the other hand 100 sq. miles of solar can light the world .



    7 yrs. ago 1000 scientists were asked about global warming . 999 answered that in some form or another global warming is taking place . The one dissenting scientist became pres bush head science guy for the white house administration . We lost 8 yrs. living in bush world .



    Thank god apple is going green in a big way . I expect apple to lead the way in the future .



    peace



    9



    PS thank you for pointing out that i am off topic while you make a post also off topic . quite funny.
  • Reply 98 of 101
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    Ice core sample from around the globe show a steady parts per million amount of carbon,methane and other gases . For something like 97;000 yrs. we have a steady amount of these gases. The line on the graph is almost flat.



    I don't think anyone is arguing that CO2 levels are not going up.



    Quote:

    On the other hand 100 sq. miles of solar can light the world .



    Hmm. 100 sq miles is 258,888,100 square meters. I've often heard the figure of 100W per sq. Meter, so that brings us to 25 Gigawatts at the peak (noon in the desert)



    Humans consume 15 terawatts. So you'd actually need 60,000 square miles. That's quite a bit of desert, and it only gives that much at noon.



    There's a plant planned in California (source: Wikipedia) to generate 550 MW over 9.5 sq. miles. To scale that up to meet current world energy demand would require 260,000 sq. miles, or twice the area of Arizona.



    Where are you going to get the raw materials for so much photovoltaics.
  • Reply 99 of 101
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    I think he means 100 miles square. Not 100 square miles.

    But what good are mere data?







    C.
  • Reply 100 of 101
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I still don?t see a retail market for a tablet-only device and haven?t heard of a good business model for it. If someone can wow me, I?m all ears.



    I'm looking at a Target circular from this past weekend, advertising an Asus 10" PC with webcam, 160gb hard drive, 1gb ram, weighs 2 pounds. All for the ridiculous price of $319.99. Only problem, runs on Windows XP.



    Now imaging a 10" Apple version. With a pull-down (i.e. onscreen) keyboard. Watch movies. Email. Surf Internet. Map access. Read books. Upload vacation photos while on vacation, for viewing on 10" screen. Play games. And all those other custom apps you might find useful in lighweight, truly portable device.



    Because not everyone wants a full-on laptop. Too heavy, too expensive. And not everyone thinks iPhones are the be-all and end-all--who wants to watch movies or surf the Internet on a 3" screen?



    How many of these would Apple have to sell to make a profit? And at what price point?



    I don't know about you, but I'd gladly pay $500-$600 for a Mac OS tablet.
Sign In or Register to comment.