mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:09 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
macfan1977
Mar 18, 09:05 PM
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
bunch of hewwie
Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
bunch of hewwie
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:53 AM
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
I'd say time has already passed and has shown that the iPad is a useful and coveted device. It isn't a fad at all.
Wait til the newness wears off.
I'd say time has already passed and has shown that the iPad is a useful and coveted device. It isn't a fad at all.
sbarton
Sep 20, 09:40 AM
Someone help me out here. Why do some of you insist on "tuners" in this type of device. What good are they for Cable and Satelite users? I mean, at best you could tune in the analog signals on a basic cable subscription, but most cable companies are all digital now and you can't tune in *hit without one of thier set-top cable boxes. Same goes for satelite.
![megan fox wallpaper desktop. megan fox [wallpaper + iphone]](http://devilmgraphics.blog.com/files/2010/09/Megan-Fox-iphone-desktop.jpg "megan fox [wallpaper + iphone]")
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:06 AM
I struggle with the LTE angle mainly due to the fact in the UK we haven't even got visual voicemail working on the iPhone 4
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
Tonepoet
Apr 15, 09:43 AM
It'd have been nice if these people could've been identified near the end of the video with their names and what they do around the time they were saying it got better. "Bill Gates, C.E.O. of Microsoft, World's Richest Man" is the sorta man you might not have such a hard time shaping your life after. Otherwise these people seem to be nothing but strangers which seems to me to be not quite so helpful with the more sensitive areas in life.
I'm not saying they have to be all have to be successful/celebrities in order for it to be helpful and it'd be best if they weren't, to show that it can get better for people of all walks of life. It's just my own opinion, however meaningful life advice is most effective from somebody who actually means something to you.
Another key issue is not being identified in any way shape or form makes it seem like they don't want to make themselves known, which actually sets a bad example if the end goal is encouraging people to come out of the closet and just be themselves.
Oooor perhaps I'm just being nitpicky... I dunno.
I'm not saying they have to be all have to be successful/celebrities in order for it to be helpful and it'd be best if they weren't, to show that it can get better for people of all walks of life. It's just my own opinion, however meaningful life advice is most effective from somebody who actually means something to you.
Another key issue is not being identified in any way shape or form makes it seem like they don't want to make themselves known, which actually sets a bad example if the end goal is encouraging people to come out of the closet and just be themselves.
Oooor perhaps I'm just being nitpicky... I dunno.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 06:41 PM
GENEVA (Reuters) - People who criticise gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked and vilified for their views, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday.
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with "a disturbing trend," he said.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council.
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
More@Source (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE72L4XU20110322)
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with "a disturbing trend," he said.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council.
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
More@Source (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE72L4XU20110322)
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:25 AM
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:40 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 09:27 PM
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
awmazz
Mar 15, 12:22 AM
Another helpful article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42075628) (MSNBC):
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:03 PM
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 21, 12:49 PM
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
gospel9
Apr 9, 12:31 AM
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
Pants
Oct 9, 04:18 AM
Ive been using xp pro for 3 months here at work, and I have to say I'm quietly impressed. Its never crashed, nothing has unepectedly quit (and its running a bunch of custom pci cards, so if ever it was flakey, id have expected it to be so with this rig...). My only complaint is the 'look' of it - osX does look nicer, but then osX is a lot less snappy.
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
shawnce
Oct 25, 11:53 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon? IBM has been shipping 8 core POWER5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5) in a single MCM with 36 MiBs of L3 cache for a couple of years now. IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER) has a long history with these types of things. ...of course they cost far more then what Intel is putting out in the near future.
bigwig
Oct 26, 12:36 AM
8. Pfft. I'm holding out for 64 cores.
You could just get one of these (http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/).
It supports up to 512 processors under one instance of Linux and as much as 128TB of globally shared memory.
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
You could just get one of these (http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/).
It supports up to 512 processors under one instance of Linux and as much as 128TB of globally shared memory.
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
mcmarks
May 2, 12:19 PM
A couple of points:
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
Multimedia
Sep 26, 01:44 PM
well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
bushido
Mar 18, 06:46 AM
i'm surprised its not against some law tbh
i'm in europe so i can use tethering without any additional costs bc its just a rip off anyway. the provider enables a feature for u that is there in the first place and they give u the same data.
its as if t-online would ask me to pay extra for every additional laptop connected to my wifi
i'm in europe so i can use tethering without any additional costs bc its just a rip off anyway. the provider enables a feature for u that is there in the first place and they give u the same data.
its as if t-online would ask me to pay extra for every additional laptop connected to my wifi
wkhahn
Sep 20, 10:34 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:45 PM
That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:48 PM
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.