Evangelion
Jul 12, 03:55 AM
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Since your concern is the high price of the Xeon, I find it ironic that you want to use XE in a Mac, since XE is also VERY expensive. I believe they cost about $1000 a piece.
I believe that the Woodcrests start at around $400, which isn't outrageous price. For the price of once XE you could have two 2Ghz Woodcrests.
Since your concern is the high price of the Xeon, I find it ironic that you want to use XE in a Mac, since XE is also VERY expensive. I believe they cost about $1000 a piece.
I believe that the Woodcrests start at around $400, which isn't outrageous price. For the price of once XE you could have two 2Ghz Woodcrests.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 08:46 PM
Of course it did. I think at one point or another all of us experienced some type of emotional pain where our sexuality is concerned. Who wants to be different? Or preached to? Or told by people like you that we may have some type of mental health issue? Or be discriminated against? It's scary and painful.
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.[/quote]
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
I guess with enough "therapy" we would be able to persuade you to become a homosexual?
From what I know about repairative therapy, persuasion doesn't change anyone's sexual orientation.
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.[/quote]
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
I guess with enough "therapy" we would be able to persuade you to become a homosexual?
From what I know about repairative therapy, persuasion doesn't change anyone's sexual orientation.
awmazz
Mar 14, 12:27 PM
This here page, fwiw (http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=8976200&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL), says the carrier RR was exposed to thirty days radiation in an hour. There are more than 700 hours in a month. You do the math.
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
logandzwon
May 2, 10:37 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:36 AM
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
Puma not sure if this will be any good but i have been reading this all day...its updated frequently
clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake)
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
Puma not sure if this will be any good but i have been reading this all day...its updated frequently
clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake)
emotion
Sep 21, 01:36 PM
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 11:34 AM
I am inland of two, on the shores of Lake Ontario, one East one West, both at ~20 miles.
BUT, the prevailing wind is from the North-West, so Rochester, Northern New York will probably get the fallout.
Candu reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor) are reasonably safe.
BUT, the prevailing wind is from the North-West, so Rochester, Northern New York will probably get the fallout.
Candu reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor) are reasonably safe.
ender78
Oct 25, 11:27 PM
What I see Apple doing is milking their pricing agreements with Intel. The only reason that I can see Apple sticking out so long with Core Duo is that after the Core 2 Duo processors were released, Intel cut prices on the older chips. Intel's manufacturing pipelines are short [announce processor , produce, move on]. Apple must have gotten a great deal on the older Duos [I know they are not old processors, just no longer top of the line].
What did Apple have to loose by delaying the introduction of the Core 2 Duo [the sales of 10 machines whose sales went to Dell?]. I suspect that anyone that held out for the Core 2 Duo, bought one in the last two days, and did not go to a competitor. Let's not forget that while every other vendor may have announced a Core 2 Duo notebook in the last two months, Apple likely took more orders in the last two days, than some of those vendors have had in the last two months. Apple now has the x86 pipeline open to them, they will make a move when it benefits them financially, and not before.
I personally expect the the 8 Core machine at Macworld. There is little reason for Apple to release the machine before then. I'm itching for a Quad but can easily wait [especially since I do not expect a price premium on the machine, the next processor will cost little more than the four core version today]. I am also hoping to see Leopard at Macworld.
What did Apple have to loose by delaying the introduction of the Core 2 Duo [the sales of 10 machines whose sales went to Dell?]. I suspect that anyone that held out for the Core 2 Duo, bought one in the last two days, and did not go to a competitor. Let's not forget that while every other vendor may have announced a Core 2 Duo notebook in the last two months, Apple likely took more orders in the last two days, than some of those vendors have had in the last two months. Apple now has the x86 pipeline open to them, they will make a move when it benefits them financially, and not before.
I personally expect the the 8 Core machine at Macworld. There is little reason for Apple to release the machine before then. I'm itching for a Quad but can easily wait [especially since I do not expect a price premium on the machine, the next processor will cost little more than the four core version today]. I am also hoping to see Leopard at Macworld.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 10:46 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
megfilmworks
Oct 8, 11:02 AM
When pigs fly.
gopher
Oct 9, 07:28 AM
If Windows XP didn't have so much spyware attached to it, and required registration, and the insecurity that Microsoft is so famous for on its systems (yes there are still as many bugs and holes in XP for hackers to get through as in Windows 2000 and before), and the fact remains none of the source code is open, where at least some of Mac OS X is open and free for development purposes, I would have gone to Microsoft. Speed doesn't matter a hill of beans if your machine is so insecure you can't trust your bank numbers to it. Macs are faster in some cases than Windows XP, while slower in others and they maintain a level of security that doesn't require a firewall or anti-virus program anywhere near as much as Windows XP does.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
GGJstudios
Apr 9, 12:52 PM
If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:28 AM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
leekohler
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
flopticalcube
Apr 26, 02:36 PM
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
O'heresy!
But well put.
O'heresy!
But well put.
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
If this is all iTV is going to offer for $249 then forget it.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.Price for me $1099 cheapest MacBook plus $5 cable $1104. I think I'll take the $249.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.Price for me $1099 cheapest MacBook plus $5 cable $1104. I think I'll take the $249.
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
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:28 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
cnorth3
Oct 7, 02:30 PM
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
Yeah, it's almost impossible to get an app approved (other than the 70k that have already been approved):rolleyes: And sure, most devs would much rather sell direct than have to put up with all the visibility and market power of the App Store. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Apple is such a nuisance!
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
Yeah, it's almost impossible to get an app approved (other than the 70k that have already been approved):rolleyes: And sure, most devs would much rather sell direct than have to put up with all the visibility and market power of the App Store. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Apple is such a nuisance!
fat phil
Apr 13, 08:36 AM
There's some very exciting stuff in there - I can't wait to get my hands on it.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
Huntn
Mar 13, 08:27 AM
might be better suited to the political forum
In hindsight, I'd move it if I could. Maybe the moderators will help.
It is a risk vs reward situation. Is the risk worth the reward? Until they find an answer for spent fuel rods, I'm mostly against. Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
In hindsight, I'd move it if I could. Maybe the moderators will help.
It is a risk vs reward situation. Is the risk worth the reward? Until they find an answer for spent fuel rods, I'm mostly against. Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
JackAxe
Sep 26, 05:31 PM
I didn't know the Renderman Maya plug-in was not mult-threaded. I was thinking of getting it, are you saying it's only a one cpu renderer?
Yep. :( I know of a peep on the OS X Maya forum that ended up buying the full version. I don't have the money for that sort of thing, so I'm not going to buy until the RenderMan Plug-in supports whatever 64-bit version of Maya is released in the future. Then I'll also be upgrading Maya. :)
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Yep. :( I know of a peep on the OS X Maya forum that ended up buying the full version. I don't have the money for that sort of thing, so I'm not going to buy until the RenderMan Plug-in supports whatever 64-bit version of Maya is released in the future. Then I'll also be upgrading Maya. :)
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
No comments:
Post a Comment