Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:20 PM
Homosexuals have a right to live the same lifestyle as anybody else, under the Constitution and under the UN Declaration.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
slu
Sep 12, 03:31 PM
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
millerb7
May 2, 10:59 AM
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
skunk
Apr 27, 09:21 AM
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
skunk
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 09:11 PM
I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 11:21 AM
That's where things are going.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
There's a fair bit of misconception in the 10 year lifecycle of the PS3 - the PS2 had a ten year lifecycle too, but the PS3 was released well into that 10 years. The 10 year thing is taken out of context. There will most likely be a ps4 in a couple of years (well, if Japan recovers from the current happenings). I think the same thing can apply to the 360 - there's been a lot of talk about some thing similar - I do think that we won't see anything this year due to the runaway success of Kinect. We'll most likely get an announcement next year and a release the year after. I've a feeling that we'll see something different in the way compatibility works as there was talk of forward "compatible games" many have taken their own thoughts on what that has meant though.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
There's a fair bit of misconception in the 10 year lifecycle of the PS3 - the PS2 had a ten year lifecycle too, but the PS3 was released well into that 10 years. The 10 year thing is taken out of context. There will most likely be a ps4 in a couple of years (well, if Japan recovers from the current happenings). I think the same thing can apply to the 360 - there's been a lot of talk about some thing similar - I do think that we won't see anything this year due to the runaway success of Kinect. We'll most likely get an announcement next year and a release the year after. I've a feeling that we'll see something different in the way compatibility works as there was talk of forward "compatible games" many have taken their own thoughts on what that has meant though.
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:12 PM
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.
Huh?
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.
BladesOfSteel
May 5, 10:51 AM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Intuit
Apr 21, 06:09 AM
I got to back chrono up I know tons of ways viruses can hide in windows. Here's a few.
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
Mousse
Apr 25, 06:14 PM
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
skunk
Mar 27, 07:10 PM
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyleHomosexuals have a right to live the same lifestyle as anybody else, under the Constitution and under the UN Declaration.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
pmz
Mar 18, 09:27 AM
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 03:58 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
stompy
Apr 14, 09:58 PM
Do you honestly believe that I am ONLY using THIS particular thread to gather info about Mac machines?
It's clear you want to make an objective decision. Other than what I read in this thread, what else could I know about you? Here's a couple quotes that made an impression on me:
11 posts in you wrote "Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"?"
#27 "Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts."
Here's what I wrote at the beginning of my post:
I'm not sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
It won't show up in this quote, but I originally highlighted the phrase "based on this thread;" it certainly seemed that you were using this thread to sort things out. I apparently ruffled your feathers on that point, sorry about that.
not everyone will come to the same conclusions. But that's what good about "choice", right?
I said pretty much the same at the end of my post. :)
It's clear you want to make an objective decision. Other than what I read in this thread, what else could I know about you? Here's a couple quotes that made an impression on me:
11 posts in you wrote "Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"?"
#27 "Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts."
Here's what I wrote at the beginning of my post:
I'm not sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
It won't show up in this quote, but I originally highlighted the phrase "based on this thread;" it certainly seemed that you were using this thread to sort things out. I apparently ruffled your feathers on that point, sorry about that.
not everyone will come to the same conclusions. But that's what good about "choice", right?
I said pretty much the same at the end of my post. :)
generik
Sep 26, 03:35 AM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
SactoGuy18
Mar 13, 06:12 AM
I think people have to realize the reactors at Fukushima--while the fuel rods may have melted down--is NOT anywhere close to a major catastrophe like what happened at Chernobyl, where the overheated uranium fuel literally turned the graphite moderator blocks into an explosive bomb and there was no containment structure to hold back the massive release of the fallout from that explosion.
It's more like what happened at Three Mile Island, and the radioactive release from that accident wasn't that significant, thanks to the reactor vessel still in one piece to minimize radioactive release.
It's more like what happened at Three Mile Island, and the radioactive release from that accident wasn't that significant, thanks to the reactor vessel still in one piece to minimize radioactive release.
Jayomat
Apr 10, 10:09 AM
Hi guys,
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
If you are happy with windows stick with it. if you don't "have" to switch because you need a specifitc application, just don't do it. It's not "THAT MUCH" better as everyone wants to make you believe. I still like to use my macbook though ;)
You might not like the lack of customization, the need to drag and drop to move files (most cases), windows resizing, the dock, finder in general, graphics performance, lack of games, lack of professional software other than audio/video etc... the list goes on...
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
If you are happy with windows stick with it. if you don't "have" to switch because you need a specifitc application, just don't do it. It's not "THAT MUCH" better as everyone wants to make you believe. I still like to use my macbook though ;)
You might not like the lack of customization, the need to drag and drop to move files (most cases), windows resizing, the dock, finder in general, graphics performance, lack of games, lack of professional software other than audio/video etc... the list goes on...
Funkymonk
May 2, 09:08 AM
And it begins...
I'z scared :(
I'z scared :(
javajedi
Oct 9, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok,
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
How incredibly ignorant. You know as well as everyone else here that this is complete ************. What really pisses me of is when people with agendas put spin on an issue. This is exactly what you are doing. Your remark is equally as arrogant as saying "PC's are faster and nobody will change my mind because they boot in 10 seconds in Windows XP and the Mac takes over a minute."
This attitude does not help Apple, and it does nothing but hurt the Mac community. You know folks it's interesting when you look back to the early to mid 90's at all the Windows bigots... you know those people who we tried to show them something intresting, something different, and something cool... the Macintosh, and they are entirely closed minded and extremely aggrogant. No matter how what you did, said, or anything else mattered. I'm seeing the exact same thing here, and it's discusting.
I would suggest you �Think Different.�..
Ok,
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
How incredibly ignorant. You know as well as everyone else here that this is complete ************. What really pisses me of is when people with agendas put spin on an issue. This is exactly what you are doing. Your remark is equally as arrogant as saying "PC's are faster and nobody will change my mind because they boot in 10 seconds in Windows XP and the Mac takes over a minute."
This attitude does not help Apple, and it does nothing but hurt the Mac community. You know folks it's interesting when you look back to the early to mid 90's at all the Windows bigots... you know those people who we tried to show them something intresting, something different, and something cool... the Macintosh, and they are entirely closed minded and extremely aggrogant. No matter how what you did, said, or anything else mattered. I'm seeing the exact same thing here, and it's discusting.
I would suggest you �Think Different.�..
Bonte
Sep 20, 10:47 AM
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
leekohler
Mar 27, 11:22 PM
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
How interesting. You expect others to consider your feelings, while denying them the same courtesy. Wow.
People like you Bill, are the reason I attempted suicide at 19 (I'm 43 now). I didn't attempt it because I was gay. I attempted because I was afraid that if anyone knew, I would lose everything- family, friends etc. Like it or not, the things you say convey that kind of thing to young people. It works both ways. You get what you give. You might want to think about what you're giving right now. Like it or not, you're causing harm. No one would sit here and tell you not to be handicapped.
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
How interesting. You expect others to consider your feelings, while denying them the same courtesy. Wow.
People like you Bill, are the reason I attempted suicide at 19 (I'm 43 now). I didn't attempt it because I was gay. I attempted because I was afraid that if anyone knew, I would lose everything- family, friends etc. Like it or not, the things you say convey that kind of thing to young people. It works both ways. You get what you give. You might want to think about what you're giving right now. Like it or not, you're causing harm. No one would sit here and tell you not to be handicapped.
Eniregnat
Mar 18, 05:30 PM
This concept will also work with other services that do not recode the song/data before transmission. Every DRM scheme has its flaws. I am willing to bet that Apple already has a fix and wasn�t going to release it before it was necessary.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий