darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
ShavenYak
Mar 18, 03:30 PM
I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
mcarnes
Sep 20, 02:02 AM
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
:p Good one.
:p Good one.
mytdave
May 2, 11:29 AM
Why does Apple even have the "open safe files after download" option in Safari? If they insist on keeping that "feature" in Safari, the least they could do is have it off by default.
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
caity13cait
Sep 23, 07:31 AM
I've noticed a lot of people going on about the iTV being 802.11n compatible. What I want to know is how is this going to be incorporated into wireless networks that are currently supporting 802.11 a,b & g. If it is going to be 802.11n then we are all going to need new routers to accommodate the higher transfer rate, and what about all those individuals possessing an imac / mac mini with built in wireless with no way to upgrade to the new standard without getting new machines or additional hardware. its going to be an expensive upgrade on top of the $299 price for an iTV
IT is backwards compatable. Unfortunately if the iTv requires it for larger hd files in the future it may be a problem. I am not sure how far along Apple is on 802.11n but it seems to me if they are going to require it they better start putting it in computers soon. I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
IT is backwards compatable. Unfortunately if the iTv requires it for larger hd files in the future it may be a problem. I am not sure how far along Apple is on 802.11n but it seems to me if they are going to require it they better start putting it in computers soon. I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 11:03 AM
i find hard to believe that the casualties are only in the 1000-3000 range.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:56 PM
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.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
leekohler
Mar 28, 10:01 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Exactly. I didn't get it either.
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Exactly. I didn't get it either.
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!
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:47 AM
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
So it's more about how effective, money-wise, it can be to buy a new computer. Doesn't really have much to do about their performance or longevity.
So it's more about how effective, money-wise, it can be to buy a new computer. Doesn't really have much to do about their performance or longevity.
deannnnn
May 5, 01:08 PM
Worst part is that I got an email from AT&T just last week saying they just "completed a major upgrade" in Chicago. I'm still getting dropped calls left and right and 3G isn't that great either. And this is AFTER the upgrade??
Yeah, after the "major upgrade" in NYC last year, I saw major improvements with 3G speeds, but even more dropped calls. I was happy about the speed I guess, but I don't have a landline, and really rely on my iPhone for calling. It's terrible.
Yeah, after the "major upgrade" in NYC last year, I saw major improvements with 3G speeds, but even more dropped calls. I was happy about the speed I guess, but I don't have a landline, and really rely on my iPhone for calling. It's terrible.
macridah
Oct 25, 10:33 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 03:52 PM
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
Multimedia
Oct 31, 05:10 PM
What's funny is that the 8-core Mac Pro will be more of a stop-gap model. After all, the Clovertown is two Woodcrest CPUs on the same die, but still running off the same FSB bandwidth and the first pair of cores must utilize the FSB to transfer data to the second pair of cores and vice versa. We won't see unified quad-core CPUs until sometime next year along with the multiplexed/bonded (and faster base rate) FSB implementations. ...AMD will be shipping fully unified quad-core CPUs in mid-December to early January. Not that it matters since Apple isn't using them.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
thejoshu
Mar 21, 01:41 AM
Bullpucky. The RIAA, and recording artists, and Apple, and any other corporate entity, owe you exactly nothing. If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy it -- it's that simple. If enough people don't buy it, then the companies will change -- that's capitalism in action.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
Apple OC
Mar 13, 09:22 PM
Is it possible to like build a "Great Wall of China" arround Japan's tsunami areas?
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!.
how big should these walls be? 30-40 feet? ... might as well build them all up the coast of California too.
not really a viable solution
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!.
how big should these walls be? 30-40 feet? ... might as well build them all up the coast of California too.
not really a viable solution
rhett7660
Mar 27, 11:44 AM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
mscriv
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:41 AM
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance! If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
roland.g
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
That's what I thought when I saw that they weren't specific about WiFi ... simply calling it "802.11 wireless networking" instead of specifically stating it was "802.11 A/B/G".
but that brings up the point of what's sending to it. Doesn't matter that it has new tech to recieve at higher bandwidth if the computer streaming to it only sends out at 802.11g.
but that brings up the point of what's sending to it. Doesn't matter that it has new tech to recieve at higher bandwidth if the computer streaming to it only sends out at 802.11g.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 12, 01:44 PM
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق