Slashdot Mirror

It wasn't me who looked into it, it was my flatmate. He has a law degree, works with contracts all day, and an insane level of morality/conscientiousness, so I'd be apt to believe him over you to be honest! I'm quite happy to pay it if we actually need it. iPlayer does not require a TV tuner.

Have a look here. I wouldn't be surprised if they require you to pay a TV license for iPlayer eventually, but it doesn't seem that it's the case yet.

Then you may be grossly mistaken (pun intended).

Besides, you're supposed to bring your own towel.

SpaceX stated it was the most powerful rocket since the Apollo era. They also said a larger rocket would be needed for a Mars mission. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12975872

Funny thing about that. Its been proven that overweight people are healthier than underweight people. Not obese, moderately overweight. Citation here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4468001.stm . The fact of the matter is, humans are supposed to have some fat on them. It helps them weather famines and illness. If you are underweight you have a much higher chance of dieing from an illness simply because you have no energy reserves to fight it not to mention being skinny is a sign that you are not getting enough nutrients from a variety of foods. This whole shift towards "everyone must be skinny and obey the BMI" is a load of shit. BMI is the worst calculation for how healthy someone is. It assumes a linear relationship from weight to height and doesnt even consider muscle mass or other activities. Sumo wrestlers are some of the most healthy people in the world partly due to the intense workouts they do daily. They have little visceral fat, but mostly subcutaneous fat. Subcutaneous fat is more-or-less harmless but also the most noticeable and stigmatized. Its the first one (visceral fat) that causes big guts and all sorts of health problems.

In the UK, a recentish study found alcohol to be much more harmful to you, and to others around you, than tobacco. Alcohol worse even than heroin and crack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

Most of the reports I can find say it costs the NHS ~£2Billion to treat smokers and smoking related diseases. But I'll take the the most inflated figure I can find and we'll say it's £5Billion

UK tax duty on Tobacco alone is estimated to hit £10-12 Billion this year... Year on year it has been double or more the cost to the NHS. And that's only if take the inflated cost which includes figures for any disease that might've been caused by smoking, like asthma - despite the fact that car/bus/truck fumes are proven to be a more likely cause for such things.

Now I've linked to my reputable sources - though I apologise that ONS has decided only to provide excel spreadsheets, as it makes it a bit harder to find after following my link - so now, please show me where you got your facts about it being the other way round...?

Boeing? You mean that manufacturer of convertible commuter airliners? Maybe they should use some of that 'flimsy carbon fiber' in their planes to keep the roofs on - I heard they were planning to do so in their forthcoming yet somehow yet even more delayed machine (or was that just a dream?).

Boeing? You mean that manufacturer of convertible commuter airliners? Maybe they should use some of that 'flimsy carbon fiber' in their planes to keep the roofs on - I heard they were planning to do so in their forthcoming yet somehow yet even more delayed machine (or was that just a dream?).

Technical fault of the engine, not Boeing, any RR Trent 800 could have had that failure.

Upon investigation, the accident was blamed on ice crystals from the fuel system clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger (FOHE). Air accident investigators called for this component on the Trent 800 series engine to be redesigned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7941137.stm

As for all A-340 loses from humans or weather...

9 November 2007 – An Iberia Airlines A340-600 (EC-JOH) was badly damaged after sliding off the runway at Ecuador’s Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. The aircraft was scrapped.

Rain didn't cause the landing gear to collapse, the construction of the gear did.

Finally we can get Breast milk ice cream back in stores !!!

The BBC article is much better.

From that article:

Gravity is strongest in yellow areas; it is weakest in blue ones.

...

Even so, a boat off the coast of Europe (bright yellow) can sit 180m "higher" than a boat in the middle of the Indian Ocean (deep blue) and still be on the same level plane.

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't you be lower where the gravity is stronger?

They used elevation and colors to indicate gravity strength. Are the radii supposed to be linearly comparable? The differences look too big.

I was wondering that too, and I found an answer: "The differences have been magnified nearly 10,000 times to show up as they do in the new model.": BBC News - Gravity satellite yields 'Potato Earth' view. The article also gives further explanation of what the model represents.

Really, the fragmentation argument? The phones have been insanely profitable to OEM, have you looked at samsung and other companies profits reported? HTC is laughing all the way to the bank..

OEM's are already competing, and have been competing. Openness has only upsides in the long term, and the only threat is a supposed patent threat which has not been proven in a single court case including the android vs oracle case.

"If there's something wrong with the automatic systems?" Well,ave you used a sat-nav recently? These people have:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12360687

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8254387.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6483383.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-11180476

"If there's something wrong with the automatic systems?" Well,ave you used a sat-nav recently? These people have:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12360687

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8254387.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6483383.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-11180476

"If there's something wrong with the automatic systems?" Well,ave you used a sat-nav recently? These people have:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12360687

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8254387.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6483383.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-11180476

"If there's something wrong with the automatic systems?" Well,ave you used a sat-nav recently? These people have:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12360687

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8254387.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6483383.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-11180476

Muppets.

And yet things like this get away without even a slap on the wrist from the OFT.

96% receive a lower offer than was quoted? That's not a con at all....

They exist, but sadly haven't given us any more answers. For example, the 2004 Mexico incident. The Mexican government says they were UFOs. CNN had live video as it was happening. You can find the video on YouTube.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3707057.stm

Or the Phoenix Lights. I've seen tons of video of the lights themselves, which remain unexplained. I've also seen video during the Phoenix Lights when a large mass covers the sky and blankets out the stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

In both cases, you had government agencies openly confirmed the incident as unexplainable phenomena, and both incidents were well documented. But what can you say other than that you don't have any explanation?

It was all over the news and is a known controversy with the show about the continual racist comments.

Here is a news article about the show slamming Mexicans: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/110201/BBC-racist-mexican-stereotypes-top-gear and http://www.nowpublic.com/world/bbc-apologies-top-gear-racist-comments-about-mexico

Germans: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Germans-up-in-arms-over.2686710.jp and http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/text/apps_aprjun2006_text.html

Gays: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6189163.stm

If you watch it all the time you must have known about the ongoing racist issues with that show. I'm guessing you don't actually watch the show at all.

I've backed up my statements and stand by every one of them as the truth.

It was all over the news and is a known controversy with the show about the continual racist comments.

Here is a news article about the show slamming Mexicans: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/110201/BBC-racist-mexican-stereotypes-top-gear and http://www.nowpublic.com/world/bbc-apologies-top-gear-racist-comments-about-mexico

Germans: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Germans-up-in-arms-over.2686710.jp and http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/text/apps_aprjun2006_text.html

Gays: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6189163.stm

If you watch it all the time you must have known about the ongoing racist issues with that show. I'm guessing you don't actually watch the show at all.

I've backed up my statements and stand by every one of them as the truth.

Let's ask the Beeb, shall we?

Saturday 12 March: [...]
2020 [JST]: Tepco begins pumping seawater, mixed with the element boron, into unit 1's reactor. Boron is used as a shield in nuclear reactors, as it controls the nuclear reaction.

I'm sorry you have trouble with reading comprehension yourself, as it's plainly evident that the injection of seawater into at least one of the reactors was started less than 36 hours after the tsunami hit - unless you're dimwitted enough to think that the Japanese engineers thought they'd do the trick by hosing down the exterior of the containment building's walls with some seawater. Incidentally - the BBC timeline also details many of the steps that were taken to try and restore power and keep things under control in the intervening 36 hours.

mechanics have never been mentioned as a reason for the delay,

You're the only one asserting that there was any unreasonable delay at all. Why should the Japanese feel they have to justify or explain the steps they've taken to J. Random, Esq., on Slashdot? Frankly, I'd much rather see them focus their efforts on controlling the situation - there will be years for them to write their memoirs and explain all of the minute-by-minute decisions and issues *after* they've done what they can to prevent and control a nuclear disaster.

Let's review your original post, now, in light of all we've learned:

except they WEREN'T quick to pump the seawater. It was many days LATE, obviously to protect that significant investment.

36 hours is quick when your entire infrastructure has been demolished by a 10 meter wall of water and a 9.0 magnitude earthquake. Even if it were humanly possible they could have started pumping seawater sooner, it certainly isn't "many days LATE." For the math whizzes, 36 hours is not even 2 full days - this means that in order to have not been "many days LATE," they would have had to start pumping boronated seawater into operational nuclear reactors *days before* the earthquake & tsunami ever hit.

You don't appear to have any particular credentials that would qualify you as an expert in nuclear emergency response, but you feel well qualified to second guess the decisions being made by TEPCO - the context, and information feeding into which you have no way of knowing. You've read a couple newspaper articles and watched a few Youtube videos, and decided that the Japanese were somehow irresponsible, or that TEPCO is some evil conglomerate that would choose to render hundreds of square kilometers of coastal Japan uninhabitable for centuries, rather than risk damaging their precious reactors with some seawater. Except the justification you use for your opinion - namely that they waited "DAYS" to begin injecting seawater - is demonstrably false, and it's self-evident that bad assumptions make for bad conclusions.

And that is all.

It's not just the RIAA. Here in the UK we are covered by the PRS (Performing Right Society), who stick their nose in everywhere it's not wanted as well. We've had issues going on for years - no radios allowed in offices, factories etc unless the company pays for a license from the PRS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_7457000/7457376.stm

It even got to the state where taxi drivers were being threatened with legal action for having a radio on if their passengers could hear the radio - how damn stupid is that. So, the taxi driver could listen to the radio on the way to pick up a fare but, once they had picked them up, had to turn off the radio until they dropped them off again.

Bieber.

The GP means the BBC, which is sometimes called "the Beeb" in the UK. Or... do I get a "whoosh!"? :)

That was The Guardian. This is what the real BBC had to say on the subject.

Meanwhile, Yes, Prime Minister had a few things to say about the press:

"Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country, The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country, The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country, The Financial Times is read by people who own the country, The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

"Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?"

"Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

The UK government has already said they don't like the plan. From the BBC UK rejects EU call for city centre ban on petrol cars:

But UK Transport Minister Norman Baker said it should not be "involved" in individual cities' transport choices.

"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas," he said.

It's certainly an interesting idea. And it seems, using the example of London's congestion charge, that it wouldn't be a bad thing. I certainly encourage more people to use public transport, and ride bikes.

And for the Yanks who will complain they live in the suburbs, maybe lobby your local government for better public transport? And stop complaining, this is an article from Europe.

Better public transport? But that would take money away from our highways! Besides, public transport always ends up losing money - damn, thieving government types throwing money down the toilet. Clearly, you are an idiot.

The answer is obviously to continue building massive, sprawling suburbs on every arable acre of land in the US, then complain that we can't afford to build a new superhighway to every gated community out there. The news media tells me that the only answer to our economic woes is to build more single-family homes, as apparently the home construction industry is the basis of our entire economy - we can't afford to plan higher-density cities that might actually be serviceable by public transit!

One 19,000 tonne aircraft carrier for sale, one careful owner, only used to drive to church on sundays and launch fearsome aircraft into the skies to intimidate the enemy and drink their blood.

... these UAVs are becoming more and more like amateur model aircraft. In this current climate (fear, terror, control), I believe the model aircraft crowd are therefore likely to be increasingly regulated. It has happened already to the high power rocketry crowd (they pushed back - with some limited success).

An anecdote: a few years ago, a group flew a model airplane across the Atlantic (link). I found this quite interesting and told a few friends. One reacted with horror, postulating that terrorists would be able to use such a thing to deliver all sorts of nasty. No counterargument convinced him of the absurdity of his fear.

Nuclear waste is already reprocessed in Europe -- in France and the UK at least. Some even from Japan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8469249.stm

I'm not sure what the future plans are.

The UK government has already said they don't like the plan. From the BBC UK rejects EU call for city centre ban on petrol cars:

But UK Transport Minister Norman Baker said it should not be "involved" in individual cities' transport choices.

"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas," he said.

It's certainly an interesting idea. And it seems, using the example of London's congestion charge, that it wouldn't be a bad thing. I certainly encourage more people to use public transport, and ride bikes.

And for the Yanks who will complain they live in the suburbs, maybe lobby your local government for better public transport? And stop complaining, this is an article from Europe.

Well the UK government can always change their mind - they only need to hire some Japanese agricultural experts and they won't have even broken a promise: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=square+watermelon&tbm=isch

"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas,"

Another politician outed himself as a retard who doesn't have any real arguments, so he resorts to stupid rants.

A lot of Tories are against the EU, his rant is snide dig at supposed EU regulations. Unfortunately the regulation on "straight bananas" wasn't quite what the Eurosceptics thought it was - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm.

Norman Baker is a Pro-European Lib Dem Minister , Not a Tory Eurosceptic

[...] and all that money doesnt even go into roads and such, like it should, most of the road network is very much low capacity, and we are only just starting to build extra roads [...]

Road network is low capacity??? In the Netherlands???
You have your facts wrong. The main problem is that the Dutch are in the EU's top-3 of the people who commute the most. The roads are fine, but the Dutch travel too far to work!

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm

On topic again: a plan to ban something in 39 years is of course ridiculous. A whole new generation of politicians will have taken over by then, and assuming that we have the same system, they will make their own plans to impress the people for the upcoming elections.
If we have a different system, then the current plans are irrelevant anyway.

"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas,"

Another politician outed himself as a retard who doesn't have any real arguments, so he resorts to stupid rants.

A lot of Tories are against the EU, his rant is snide dig at supposed EU regulations. Unfortunately the regulation on "straight bananas" wasn't quite what the Eurosceptics thought it was - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm.

39 years away is a LONG time. Many politicians will have a chance to overturn this during that time.

Or if you're an optimist, perhaps the free market will have beat them to the punch by then. Or you might point out that there already is a modern city without petrol cars.

By 'Modern' I assume that you are ignoring the child slavery, sentences of death by stoning for adultery and death sentences for people leaving Islam. It may have electric vehicles but in religion, law, and morals it is medieval.

The UK government has already said they don't like the plan. From the BBC UK rejects EU call for city centre ban on petrol cars:

But UK Transport Minister Norman Baker said it should not be "involved" in individual cities' transport choices.

"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas," he said.

It's certainly an interesting idea. And it seems, using the example of London's congestion charge, that it wouldn't be a bad thing. I certainly encourage more people to use public transport, and ride bikes.

And for the Yanks who will complain they live in the suburbs, maybe lobby your local government for better public transport? And stop complaining, this is an article from Europe.

Might be worth nothing that the UK has already rejected this idea.

OK, first off...living will give you cancer. Live enough, and you will get cancer.

There are a lot of things you can do while living that will increase your chances of getting cancer. Getting massive doses of radiation is one of them. I can assure you that getting cancer when you're 70 and getting it at 25 doesn't feel the same. Even though you'd be probably pissed off in both cases.

Radiation in the quantities being released from the Japanese reactors WILL NOT GIVE YOU CANCER. Scientific fact, get over it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12845304

They were exposed to radiation levels of 170-180 millisieverts, he said, which is lower than the maximum level permitted for workers on the site of 250 millisieverts.

Most people are exposed to 2 millisieverts over the average year, while 100 millisieverts is considered the lowest level at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident.

People die on the roads in massive, horrific numbers and yet this causes no comment and people are not afraid to cross the road. How come all the hysteria about radiation?

In fact, parliaments emit all kinds of legislation to reduce the risks of road accidents, including for example freedom-limiting laws that enforce the use of safety belts by private citizens, because people are worried about road safety.

People have NOT died or suffered in any meaningful numbers from any application of nuclear power technology, at all, ever.

I learn that the people who suffered in Chernobyl, and who still suffer today, are not a "meaningful number".

Intel's plants in China build 65 nm technology with plans to move to 45 nm. Sure, Intel is holding the 32 nm and smaller stuff out (hopefully), but riddle me this: If high school and college teach you the basic skills needed to make advancements upon your own, then why wouldn't being inside of Intel's 65 nm plants provide China with the skill sets they need to launch development of their own chips?

What placing manufacturing in China did was provide them with the opportunity to skip right on past the "Hey, look what germanium does if you put a bias current on it..." grunt work of the R&D we Americans invested in.

Don't forget that technology is like sex: It ain't how big it is, it is how well you use it.

And please don't forget that the prevailing attitude in Corporate America is that every penny spent on R&D is a penny that could have gone into the CEO's paycheck...

Most of all, do not underestimate the damage that greed at the top is causing. The physical disconnect - the separation; the lack of timely feedback and input from production workers - between the R&D labs in America and the plant floor way over in China alone is a huge disadvantage that we voluntarily inflicted upon ourselves...all because "workers" were transformed by "flood-up/trickle-down" economics into a "cost" that should be eliminated.

Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.

Well, on one hand the state forces foreign companies to make 49%/51% joint Chinese-owned company ventures in order to have access to the Chinese market. Once foreign firms get access and have spent a considerable amount of resources getting started in China, the state forces them to manufacture a certain percent of their product in China, NOT by themselves, but it should be subcontracted out to a Chinese company (e.g., Honda China can't make, design, and manufacture all their own stuff, they have to transfer technology to some Chinese company so that the Chinese company can make it... if you don't follow their rules, the state can simply legislate your technology away, or worse). Once you've transferred sufficient technology to the Chinese company, you start wondering why no more orders for your products are coming in, and then you realize that it's because the very Chinese company you've partnered with is now making the product 100% in China without your help and "entirely of their own innovation."
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/letter-bombs-11-coming-up-on-the-rail/

So there's our economic domination. And that's just one example of it. There's lots more, and it's in the news very frequently.

Then we have border disputes. China claims or has, in the past 10 years, claimed territory of: Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan (the entire country at missile-point, no less), Russia, India, Bhutan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Tajikstan, and any other country that has the misfortune to be touching them that isn't on their payroll. The People's Liberation Army annually ventures into Bhutan dozens of times. The government not only holds onto old conflicts which they have dubious claim, but starts new conflicts semi-frequently. We've also seen that when the CPC is pissed about a border, the Chinese media is used to intentionally and flagrantly lie about the facts in order to stir up nationalism. They have also shown that they will put the government's hand in everything, ranging from travel agents to school exchange trips to locking up the offending country's nationals for "espionage" (punishable by death) to economic embargoes meant to force countries to bend backwards and obey. Of course, the CPC will deny any involvement in any of these actions.

The People's Liberation Army continues to modernize and deploy more force aimed directly at Taiwan. The PLA "defense" budget continues to grow in the double digit percents every year, and it's almost exclusively aimed at Taiwan and the US -- it's still less than 20% of the US def

Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.

Well, on one hand the state forces foreign companies to make 49%/51% joint Chinese-owned company ventures in order to have access to the Chinese market. Once foreign firms get access and have spent a considerable amount of resources getting started in China, the state forces them to manufacture a certain percent of their product in China, NOT by themselves, but it should be subcontracted out to a Chinese company (e.g., Honda China can't make, design, and manufacture all their own stuff, they have to transfer technology to some Chinese company so that the Chinese company can make it... if you don't follow their rules, the state can simply legislate your technology away, or worse). Once you've transferred sufficient technology to the Chinese company, you start wondering why no more orders for your products are coming in, and then you realize that it's because the very Chinese company you've partnered with is now making the product 100% in China without your help and "entirely of their own innovation."
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/letter-bombs-11-coming-up-on-the-rail/

So there's our economic domination. And that's just one example of it. There's lots more, and it's in the news very frequently.

Then we have border disputes. China claims or has, in the past 10 years, claimed territory of: Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan (the entire country at missile-point, no less), Russia, India, Bhutan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Tajikstan, and any other country that has the misfortune to be touching them that isn't on their payroll. The People's Liberation Army annually ventures into Bhutan dozens of times. The government not only holds onto old conflicts which they have dubious claim, but starts new conflicts semi-frequently. We've also seen that when the CPC is pissed about a border, the Chinese media is used to intentionally and flagrantly lie about the facts in order to stir up nationalism. They have also shown that they will put the government's hand in everything, ranging from travel agents to school exchange trips to locking up the offending country's nationals for "espionage" (punishable by death) to economic embargoes meant to force countries to bend backwards and obey. Of course, the CPC will deny any involvement in any of these actions.

The People's Liberation Army continues to modernize and deploy more force aimed directly at Taiwan. The PLA "defense" budget continues to grow in the double digit percents every year, and it's almost exclusively aimed at Taiwan and the US -- it's still less than 20% of the US def

From 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11453384

"A Chinese rocket carrying a probe destined for the Moon has blasted into space."

"China launched its first manned flight into low-Earth orbit in 2003; and two more followed, with the most recent one in 2008."

With their population, lack of religion, their scientific output surge was inevitable and still is largely untapped. More to come, much more to come. And in Chinese.

Don't worry about it, we have this kid

But China does have cooler model trains than we do

Seeing a large nuclear disaster

I know you're being ironic, but it's not even a 'large' disaster. A bit of perspective: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

and you end up with a disaster that affects the entire world

I don't think you can defend this statement, unless you are talking about induced fear and panic. The people who do follow-up studies on Chernobyl and Hiroshima find no increased cancer-related deaths. Depending upon the disaster type, you may or may not have long-term localized effects on the environment, but non-local effects do not seem to exist.

I'm not sure I'd want even relatively low-level radioactive materials being spread about a city in such vast numbers and being accessible to so many people.

Then close up the coal plants because they put out a lot more radiation than anything else.

It's happening here in Germany too. The CDU just lost a state in the west (Baden-Württemberg) for the first time in 58 years, and they lost it basically to the Green Party which managed to triple their support because of what happened in Japan. Not to mention the anti-nuclear protests going on in cities across the country.

Speaking to people around me it's clear very few people actually know anything about nuclear power, outside of what they pick up in the 6 o'clock news. Most have no idea that there's even more than one type of reactor, much less that there's some pretty significant safety differences between them. It just amazes me that in an age where nicely summarized information on any topic is just a few clicks away people don't at least invest one or two hours of their lives to educate themselves before they form an opinion on something. If someone knows even just a little about pebble bed reactors, nuclear reprocessing, molten salt reactors, safety deficiencies in the old Mark I light water reactors at Fukushima etc, and they're still against nuclear power then I can respect that. Just make an effort, that's not too much to ask is it?

More Britons support the building of new nuclear power stations than oppose it, despite the crisis at Japan's Fukushima plant, an opinion poll says.

Why don't they just play in winter? We have such nice winter weather in this region!

Because they would take players away from their (mostly European) clubs, during the football season there. However, this might happen.

• Bit and flat with four propellers
• Filled with Helium and a bunch of solar panels

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9435035.stm
http://froyonation.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/qatar-invents-artificial-flying-clouds-to-block-sun-over-stadiums/

The fraud is that they claim there's a particular real-estate CEO called X who believes Y about the Galaxy Tab, and in the way it's presented it's not unreasonable for someone to believe that that person actually exists. With movies there's a clear expectation going in that it's fiction.

However, if you go and make up fake reviews about your own movies such as calling them "another winner" and attributing them to non-existant movie critics, then that's also fraud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4741259.stm

Just to be a pain in the butt, I did a 5 minute search on flight safety. The wikipedia article on air safety says that the deaths per billion journeys is 117 for flights, and 40 for cars, and deaths per billion hours is 130 for cars and 31 for flights. So if your drive to the airport is more than 1/4 of the time the flight would take you might be right. The deaths per billion km (or miles) is the number people usually use, but that would be driving cross country instead of taking the plane. And your average car ride is still safer than the average plane ride, but only because it is so much shorter in time and especially distance...

When cars came out, they were also considered unsafe, and had very strict safety requirements: "Each vehicle was expected to have a team of three in control; the driver, the fireman - to stoke the engine - and the flagman, whose job was to walk 60 yards in front waving a red flag to warn horse-drawn traffic of the machine's approach.", with a speed limit of speed of 2mph in towns and 4mph in the country. (This is from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10987606).

I don't think it is a bad idea to by quite cautionary with new technology for the first 100 years, till we have all the consequences of the once in an X years events figured out....