leekohler
Apr 24, 04:50 AM
Seriously? It's Santa Claus for adults. Lots of wishful thinking and not accepting reality. But we are definitely immortal in the sense that when we die, we feed the ground that helps feed other organisms. We may die as personalities, but everything we are feeds some other life form. I think that's beautiful. I don't want to live forever, that would be horrible. I would just like to think that while I was alive, I helped someone be happy or made others' lives easier.
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body. Other people are not so lucky. I see people with CP or Parkinson's or other illnesses, and all I can think about is how I can help those folks. You all know that hockey has become important to me in the last few months since I started playing-it has changed me in ways I can't explain. It's made me a new person. It is that one thing I thought I could never do, and now at 44, I am playing with guys who are 21 years old and I freak them out. And they have helped me out too. "Dude, no way, you are pretty damn good." I love that. :) I want to help other people do the same. I only have maybe what? 10 years to play this game at a competitive level if I'm lucky?
Lots of programs I want to get involved with for physically challenged kids and hockey. It is just such a great confidence builder:
http://www.mapetfoundation.org/prensa/angel_02_22_04/MAPET_Angels_eng.pdf
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/disabled-kids-even-score-with-sled-hockey
Point is- for all we know, we get one time here. Let's make the best of it by having fun and helping everyone we can.
So screw a "god" or whatever. There is no such thing. We live and we should be thankful that we are here now. We only get so much time. Let's make the best of it.
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body. Other people are not so lucky. I see people with CP or Parkinson's or other illnesses, and all I can think about is how I can help those folks. You all know that hockey has become important to me in the last few months since I started playing-it has changed me in ways I can't explain. It's made me a new person. It is that one thing I thought I could never do, and now at 44, I am playing with guys who are 21 years old and I freak them out. And they have helped me out too. "Dude, no way, you are pretty damn good." I love that. :) I want to help other people do the same. I only have maybe what? 10 years to play this game at a competitive level if I'm lucky?
Lots of programs I want to get involved with for physically challenged kids and hockey. It is just such a great confidence builder:
http://www.mapetfoundation.org/prensa/angel_02_22_04/MAPET_Angels_eng.pdf
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/disabled-kids-even-score-with-sled-hockey
Point is- for all we know, we get one time here. Let's make the best of it by having fun and helping everyone we can.
So screw a "god" or whatever. There is no such thing. We live and we should be thankful that we are here now. We only get so much time. Let's make the best of it.
iSee
Apr 15, 07:50 AM
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
I know this one: Use Command-Delete
I know this one: Use Command-Delete
Groovey
Aug 29, 06:03 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
Something like that. They probably put pretty much weight on iPod's battery issues together with their sales amount. Waiting for that green-colored "Limited Edition Greenpeace iPod".
Something like that. They probably put pretty much weight on iPod's battery issues together with their sales amount. Waiting for that green-colored "Limited Edition Greenpeace iPod".
beniscool
Apr 19, 08:58 PM
Well u there is expose which I think is my favorite thing about it it shows all ur open windows. I just switched to Mac not to long ago a its vary easy to use and if if you have trouble with it then there are free workshops that they will help u with things like learning how to open things fast. Also finder is the replacement of start menu i think except it is way more organized. I mean u can run windows on a mac so if u buy it and u don't like OSx then u just get windows for it. Once u buy a Mac it's hard to go back it's not huge thing it's tons of little things that make it better. I loved my MacBook so much I decided to buy a iMac to and I love that to. You just have to make that jump to Mac and u will like it. I hated Mac before I tried it. Trust me U will love it the dock is amazing expose is brilliant and finder is amazing u will love it.
MacSA
Jul 12, 04:02 AM
At the bottom of the article they seem to imply that Apple will stick with Core Solo chips for the entry level mini.... YUCK :eek:
ChrisA
Sep 26, 09:56 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Azadre
Apr 20, 08:07 PM
Windows is the castle for Microsoft. Office and everything else for the most part was the moat.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
snebes
Apr 20, 09:09 PM
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
Open Terminal, run: ls /
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
Open Terminal, run: ls /
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
slu
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
I agree with most of the comments thus far.
I am excited at the prospect of an Apple "Media Center", but this just seems like wireless front row for your TV. Which is nice, but I want a DVR and I want to be able to slide a DVD in there. I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD. But I suppose Apple does not want you to buy DVDs anymore. And if you can't order movies from the couch, then it will also suffer.
And if it works as well as my airport express does for audio (which is just OK, a lot of skips, but then I am still on 802.11b because of my TiVo), then I will pass altogether.
Good price point though. And I wonder if it'll be Mac and PC?
I am excited at the prospect of an Apple "Media Center", but this just seems like wireless front row for your TV. Which is nice, but I want a DVR and I want to be able to slide a DVD in there. I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD. But I suppose Apple does not want you to buy DVDs anymore. And if you can't order movies from the couch, then it will also suffer.
And if it works as well as my airport express does for audio (which is just OK, a lot of skips, but then I am still on 802.11b because of my TiVo), then I will pass altogether.
Good price point though. And I wonder if it'll be Mac and PC?
Shivetya
Apr 15, 11:49 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Because some groups want to convince the world they are better victims than other groups. Because some groups see more importance in who you are than what you suffered.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Because some groups want to convince the world they are better victims than other groups. Because some groups see more importance in who you are than what you suffered.
linux2mac
Apr 28, 01:16 PM
The fact this has turned into Apple haters galore is awesome!! Its funny watching them. I guess they are hoping all their Apple hate will make Windows more stable or "leading edge." ROFLMAO
I love how Windows 8 will feature "Modern Reader." Sorry Windows fans but PDF readers have been built into Linux and OSX for a decade now. Go back to your "leading edge" Windows OS sites. Double LOL!!
I love how Windows 8 will feature "Modern Reader." Sorry Windows fans but PDF readers have been built into Linux and OSX for a decade now. Go back to your "leading edge" Windows OS sites. Double LOL!!
neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 12:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 06:04 PM
Yeah, but that's for every NFL game, right? I'm just talking about the games for a single team, 16 total games throughout the season. I agree with you, $30 is probably too low but still, it should be a lot less than Sunday Ticket. Wouldn't they rather get most of that money directly (with a small cut to Apple) rather than getting a tiny sliver from Comcast (where it's part of the extended cable package and not charged for separately)?
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
charliehustle
Nov 6, 04:41 PM
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Abstract
Mar 19, 10:08 AM
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
CaoCao
Mar 26, 10:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
Blipp
Apr 13, 08:11 AM
I can't believe how many of you are writing off this app already after it's debut announcement which only covered new features and a new UI design. We essentially know NOTHING yet beyond it's new tricks, none of us have actually sat down and experienced a workflow with it. I haven't seen a single thing to suggest that features have been removed entirely or that the rest fo studio is now dead. At the absolute least Apple would put the rest of FCS2 onto the app store individually in their current form and from the attitudes I've seen in here most of you would love that they didn't update them in the least.
I too am suspicious about this release but I'm also optimistic. I don't assume that just because they didn't mention this or that that it must now be dead. We got our 64bit FCP that we've been dying for, we get background rendering and a wider range of native codecs (though we don't know which ones yet), and that all sounds like good news to me so far. I don't know what to expect from the rest of Studio as it'd be hard to imagine them revamping the entire suite unless they are truly being consumed by FCPX. If FCPX is able to switch between "Color" mode and "Motion" mode then so long as those modes remain full featured with a consistent UI across the board (something that has plagued the suite for a long time) then I can only see that as an upgrade. We'll find out more soon enough I'm sure.
If this truly does turn into what everyone is afraid of then oh well, I'm confident in my abilities to be able to adapt to an Avid or Adobe workflow. This isn't going to hold me back or ruin my parade.
I too am suspicious about this release but I'm also optimistic. I don't assume that just because they didn't mention this or that that it must now be dead. We got our 64bit FCP that we've been dying for, we get background rendering and a wider range of native codecs (though we don't know which ones yet), and that all sounds like good news to me so far. I don't know what to expect from the rest of Studio as it'd be hard to imagine them revamping the entire suite unless they are truly being consumed by FCPX. If FCPX is able to switch between "Color" mode and "Motion" mode then so long as those modes remain full featured with a consistent UI across the board (something that has plagued the suite for a long time) then I can only see that as an upgrade. We'll find out more soon enough I'm sure.
If this truly does turn into what everyone is afraid of then oh well, I'm confident in my abilities to be able to adapt to an Avid or Adobe workflow. This isn't going to hold me back or ruin my parade.
DiamondMac
Mar 18, 01:35 PM
No in the TOS it states there is a limit to unlimited (5gb), deceptive.
As several others have said, SHOW us where it says that. Please
As several others have said, SHOW us where it says that. Please
darkplanets
Mar 13, 10:17 AM
I too don't expect anything like Chernobyl. But, it doesn't help when a Government "Official" tells the media that there is nothing to worry about then another "Official" mentions that there could be a meltdown or something.
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
I'll definitely agree with you there; it's not ideal, but it will work. Remember that BWRs will continue to make heat post control rod insertion. Boric acid itself isn't that toxic... in fact it can be rather useful in many chemistry situations. Also, if we're talking blunt toxicity, remember you make boric acid through borax, something we use every day in detergents. The LD50 for Boric acid is actually higher than table salt, although there are some reproductive health concerns. I think the biggest problem we're seeing here was the lack of redundancy for external power supplies, and the potential lack of modern safety systems-- as per my previous post, there's supposed to be a wide range of safety measures to assure that this never happens, but due to it's age, who knows.[/quote]
As a consequence the German government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives. Despite these few instances (usually caused by human error) nuclear power is actually quite safe... but most people aren't educated enough to know whats actually the deal, and instead listen to the likes of Greenpeace and so on, who coincidentally also have no idea what they're talking about. If Germany is that concerned, they should be upgrading their safety systems, not abandoning it.
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
I'll definitely agree with you there; it's not ideal, but it will work. Remember that BWRs will continue to make heat post control rod insertion. Boric acid itself isn't that toxic... in fact it can be rather useful in many chemistry situations. Also, if we're talking blunt toxicity, remember you make boric acid through borax, something we use every day in detergents. The LD50 for Boric acid is actually higher than table salt, although there are some reproductive health concerns. I think the biggest problem we're seeing here was the lack of redundancy for external power supplies, and the potential lack of modern safety systems-- as per my previous post, there's supposed to be a wide range of safety measures to assure that this never happens, but due to it's age, who knows.[/quote]
As a consequence the German government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives. Despite these few instances (usually caused by human error) nuclear power is actually quite safe... but most people aren't educated enough to know whats actually the deal, and instead listen to the likes of Greenpeace and so on, who coincidentally also have no idea what they're talking about. If Germany is that concerned, they should be upgrading their safety systems, not abandoning it.
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
chrono1081
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
I honestly have no idea how you have the job that you do, because you fail tremendously in this aspect.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:51 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
No comments:
Post a Comment