citizenzen
Mar 14, 03:25 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
SimD
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
I'm out of this thread.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
CrAkD
Mar 18, 01:09 PM
Woohoo I switched from my 1st gen wifi iPad with mywi on my iPhone to a 3G iPad 2 just in time.
joepunk
Mar 11, 11:17 AM
From BBC News Live Twitter update thingy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
hvfsl
Apr 13, 12:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
leekohler
Apr 15, 09:27 AM
What's LGBT?
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:32 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 06:52 PM
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
CQd44
May 2, 08:56 AM
"Huge" threat.
About as huge as most windows ones!
About as huge as most windows ones!
UnixMac
Oct 8, 10:41 AM
OS X being 25 years old (actually, UNIX is much older) is a GOOD thing, Software (Read OS) can evolve much more easily than hardware. Unix is a work in progress to this day, and this is why it is years (literally years) ahead of windows.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
AdrianK
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
mhar4
Oct 26, 07:41 AM
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
My point exactly.
My point exactly.
slinger1968
Oct 26, 11:28 PM
I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?Yeah, you are correct it would have to be Kentsfield because of the Xeon chipset/motherboard design requires ECC/FB-DIMMs.
What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown.You are correct, I lumped both 4 core chips under the Clovertown name.
I would love a Kentsfield "desktop" based tower but I don't know if Apple wants to add another product line.
What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown.You are correct, I lumped both 4 core chips under the Clovertown name.
I would love a Kentsfield "desktop" based tower but I don't know if Apple wants to add another product line.
gugy
Sep 12, 04:05 PM
I have to disagree with many of the comments on this thread. I think this is an ideal device. I don't want a computer connected to my TV I want to gain access to the content on my computer on my TV. It is two different ways of looking at these products.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
Ditto.
I think the idea is brilliant if it work flawlessly. If the wireless transmission is great then this will be a killer product.
Why not buy Elgato, They make good stuff and Apple do not have to worry about networks being mad at them for making a dvr.
Guys this is the future.
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
Ditto.
I think the idea is brilliant if it work flawlessly. If the wireless transmission is great then this will be a killer product.
Why not buy Elgato, They make good stuff and Apple do not have to worry about networks being mad at them for making a dvr.
Guys this is the future.
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
Chupa Chupa
Apr 9, 09:46 AM
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
All of that is true but my point is regarding the future. Nintendo and Sony are sitting ducks if they continue their current strategy. You are 100% correct, both have legacy customer to support the sales of new platform titles. However, that is going to fade as a new generation grows up on iOS, not Nintendo or Sony, portable gaming.
Nintendo DS is to Blackberry what Blackberry was to 2006. It's only personal observation, but the preteen and even pre-pre teen set I see now has iPod touches, not the Gameboys or DSes of carried in my gen, as the preferred device. A lot of that has to do with Apple, but more so with the price of games.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
All of that is true but my point is regarding the future. Nintendo and Sony are sitting ducks if they continue their current strategy. You are 100% correct, both have legacy customer to support the sales of new platform titles. However, that is going to fade as a new generation grows up on iOS, not Nintendo or Sony, portable gaming.
Nintendo DS is to Blackberry what Blackberry was to 2006. It's only personal observation, but the preteen and even pre-pre teen set I see now has iPod touches, not the Gameboys or DSes of carried in my gen, as the preferred device. A lot of that has to do with Apple, but more so with the price of games.
D4F
Apr 28, 09:44 AM
Isn't this misleading? It says 'shipped' not 'sold' so I assume basically it's a bogus report. You can ship all the crappy tablets you want..doesn't mean they sold.
I'm trying to find more on it but as far as i've read somewhere apple's data is always on units shipped including those that were used as warranty replacements (pretty much they count one as two in this case) for example. Waaay stretched in my opinion.
I'm trying to find more on it but as far as i've read somewhere apple's data is always on units shipped including those that were used as warranty replacements (pretty much they count one as two in this case) for example. Waaay stretched in my opinion.
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 09:04 AM
I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
�algiris
May 2, 08:52 AM
"Huge" threat.
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by benixau
rasmasyean
Mar 12, 02:27 AM
Guys,
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
Unless you are an expert with a background in chemical/nuclear engineering, and an expert not only on just nuclear reactors but also Japanese nuclear regulations, then you aren't really in a place to criticize from halfway around the world. We derive 30% of our power from nuclear reactors, we know what we are doing. We aren't unnecessarily paranoid about nuclear power like the west is.
We know very little about the situation with the Japanese reactors, and even less about the reactors themselves.
Comparing them to the 30+ year old standards of the impoverished USSR is rather inappropriate.
Phht...I guess you're new to the internet on this side of the world. You should check NewsVine...where every American is an expert in politics, science, engineering, sociology, pschology, blah blah blah...oh, yeah...the most popular field "economics" in these past years. And Digg...forget about it...that one extends down to the gutter expertise! ;)
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
I wouldn't take it personally. This is just how people are. I mean, when September 11 happened, I'm sure nearly everyone in the Middle East thought it was somewhat funny and joked a lot about it. It's just that most of them didn't have internet access. And then we wiped those smiles off their face by dropping 500 lb bombs on their "brothers"! :p
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
Unless you are an expert with a background in chemical/nuclear engineering, and an expert not only on just nuclear reactors but also Japanese nuclear regulations, then you aren't really in a place to criticize from halfway around the world. We derive 30% of our power from nuclear reactors, we know what we are doing. We aren't unnecessarily paranoid about nuclear power like the west is.
We know very little about the situation with the Japanese reactors, and even less about the reactors themselves.
Comparing them to the 30+ year old standards of the impoverished USSR is rather inappropriate.
Phht...I guess you're new to the internet on this side of the world. You should check NewsVine...where every American is an expert in politics, science, engineering, sociology, pschology, blah blah blah...oh, yeah...the most popular field "economics" in these past years. And Digg...forget about it...that one extends down to the gutter expertise! ;)
Keep it clean, this isn't the time to be joking, and it's pretty tasteless, about as bad as CNN's Godzilla jokes; sometimes I wonder if it just doesn't register with people just because it didn't happen to them.
I wouldn't take it personally. This is just how people are. I mean, when September 11 happened, I'm sure nearly everyone in the Middle East thought it was somewhat funny and joked a lot about it. It's just that most of them didn't have internet access. And then we wiped those smiles off their face by dropping 500 lb bombs on their "brothers"! :p
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 04:00 PM
The problem with your view is that Nintendo is a JAPANESE corporation and they are still the boss over the USA counterpart. Apple has to kiss Japan's ass first to do that. I heard a very old story from the 1990s that Microsoft tried to buy them out which Nintendo of Japan's CEO, at the time, discussed and revealed in an interview.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 11:49 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
macenforcer
Aug 29, 02:12 PM
The earth is going to end up a burnt chunk of concrete unless all construction and production of materials stops today. Its is never going to happen so just start looking for other planets.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar