Disclaimer: This post makes the assumption that Windows7 sh!t version really is planned to exist and really will limit you to 3 open apps.
It's 2009. In theory we're making "progress" with technology. The basic function of an OS is to provide a standard framework on which programs can run. All the fancy UI tweaks, audio and video nonsense, bla bla bla is extra. You're going to give them all the extras but limit the basic, core functionality of your software. Really, I don't understand why we need multiple versions of the OS to begin with. If you want to have add-on software...well SELL THAT - separately. Everyone buys W7 for whatever (reasonable) price. Sell an add-on pack that includes...well whatever other crap you want to consider value-add. This way if someone buys a computer and later on decides they need XYZ functionality they can just buy that and not have to reinstall (or hack) windows.
I suppose my underlying point is that it's way past time for an OS to be transparant to the end user. Give them extra software and capability if you want, but no user should need to worry about "oh noes, did I get the right windoez version? Is it going to stop my computer from doing cool things?" when a computer is delivered to their house.
Hey, car analogy! It's a 2009 Ferrari with a 1995 geo metro engine. Except even drug addicted rock stars crash ferrari's less often than windows and vista/W7 are more akin to a UPS delivery truck with fancy decals on the side. Big, ugly, and slow with valuable but hidden/inaccessible content and a fancy look on the outside disguising it all.
Oh, and 3 programs excluding AV? Ok, so let's also exempt anti-spyware, firewall, and disc encryption tools. I run at least 2 chat client, MSIE, P2P (closing and restarting screws up xfers too), webcam program that insists on coming up, solitare or other games...
We all know that billboard would have been appropriate for a good many years before the recession.
Of course, 'give me your tired and poor' came from a time when simply being in the US didn't guarantee a higher standard of living and a "good life". You actually had to work for it once you got here.
Anyone who claims there's not enough skilled workers to fill the necessary positions should look at the recent layoff numbers in the US. Employment dropped almost 2 million jobs in the past 4 months. I'd assume at fair percentage of them are IT or other 'skilled' workers that could fill or quickly cross-train to fill these H1B jobs. I haven't heard any companies rejoicing 'oh, lots of US workers we can hire - let's retire H1B because it's more expensive to get those people'. Have you? Companies have shown they're *clearly* tied to their P&L before anything else so if H1B was more expensive why are they still using it?
All respect, but you're mistaken on several points.
LEDs are more efficient at LOWER drive currents. Go look up data sheets on common CREE, Luxeon, Lamina, and so on if you don't believe me. Some more than others, CREE is nice that it's close to linear. PWM is a good way to control brightness though because it's more precise. LEDs have a fairly narrow voltage range and current climbs exponentially as voltage changes - so a linear resistance change makes it very difficult to control. PWM solves this problem nicely.
Most LED's do not contain circuitry unless you're referring to the junction itself. Exceptions for the "LED Bulbs" for flashlight upgrades and similar. It's the job of the controller to maintain current, PWM % and so on to get the right lighting you desire. A simple resistor is a bad idea when you're pushing beyond the 1mA cheapy green LEDs.
A 120Hz light source from a LED would probably cause fun headaches, you need to move the frequency much higher. Not an issue for a solid state device though.
And finally, they most certainly do have warm light LEDs. They're a bit less bright in some cases, but not to the point of unusability.
A car without an engine can not be used as intended at all (though you could live in it i suppose!). Starcraft without a CD key can not be played.
It's not like these computers sat on a shelf unused just because areo didn't run. I'm not saying the sticker wasn't unclear and the process was done correctly but the computers are still USABLE.
I hate car analogies but you're dead on. After all, they show an Altima driving like a race car with GPS and full leather in one commercial, then sayhow it gets amazing gas mileage in another, while starting at the low, low price of $18k.
Granted 18K gets you neigher the 275HP nor hybrid engine but people generally aren't so stupid as to walk into a dealership and buy the first car on the lot in the color they want expecting everything int he commercial. Why are computers so different?
Really, so even though tons of people illegally got beta copies from p2p and plenty of others legitimately got copies...HP, Compaq, Dell, and so on were totally unable to get a copy to try on their hardware? Sounds more like people should be going after the hardware manufacturers for compensation and those manufacturers might go after MS to put some bit of it back in their pocket.
But...since our wonderful legal system makes it much more profitable to dump all the blame on a single entity instead of multiple MS gets all the blame here. No lawyer wants to sue every hardware manufacturer that put a vista ready sticker on their computers.
Yes, a consumer who blindly and broadly interprets a sticker should be given something for nothing. That's what you're suggesting after all.
If you want to argue consumers should be given what they paid for...well that's listed on the box. Unfortunately there's a conflict as the hardware specs explicitly detail what's in the box and a 'vista capable' sticker vaugely implies they're capable of doing something they're not. Well, partially - because vista will actually run, but not all the features will be available. Did the sticker say 'aero capable'? Did a follow-up manual inside the box say it would boot in x seconds, run benchmark y at a certain speed, run the UI with these exact features? No. None of that was explicitly guaranteed.
In the end, the computer HARDWARE is exactly as specified. The software you might call defective - so give consumers a refund or replacement for the defective part. I fail to see why a company should be liable for more than their ill-gotten profits. If MS made $50 per computer (even gross, generally net is used for damages) then fine them that much and refund it to the consumers.
So again, the idea the a software OEM should be liable for hardware sold at retail is SILLY.
Joe sixpack should maybe do a little research before spending his money. God forbid a consumer take responsibility for his/her actions. I'm so sick of everyone wanting a hand-out because they're too lazy to even *think* for themselves much less learn or understand something.
Besides, most retail places have laptops on display for you to look at or mess with. It's simple enough to 'test drive' one and realize it's not fast enough for what you want to do.
No, the hardware specs were exactly listed in pretty much every case. Look at an add for a computer - it'll tell you hard drive, memory, CPU, monitor size, etc. It's all explicitly listed. There was no question as to what the hardware was that was being sold.
The actual issue here is that these computers won't run aero - that 'vista capable' implies running the whole OS and all the features. Yes, it was a sneaky way to help computer sales. I'm not disagreeing that it was poorly done. However, it's a sticker with two words on it. It's not a 20-page document detailing the exact behavior, capabilities, and so on of the hardware/software interaction. MS didn't sell the build, distribute, or sell hardware. I would require them to provide an workable OS (XP would be great on most of those computers) or refund of the price of the OS that's not working (provided the consumer stops using it).
Really, people just want something for nothing again - as usual. I mean, you can't expect a layman to understand that a $400 computer is not as good as a $3000 computer. That's simply not reasonable. I would expect a $400 computer to be just as fast - after all, they shouldn't sell it if it's not perfect. One can also not expect consumers to do any research about what they're buying./sarcasm... So a car analogy! The retarded smart cars are 'highway legal' but they struggle to hit 65-70mph that most people drive in my state. Taking one of those on a major highway is risky and far more dangerous than driving a "real" car if 2-ton SUV's are flying around to pass. I suppose everyone who bought one of those should be upgraded to a bigger vehicle for free?
Should they be held responsible? Yes. For the cost of the operating system that's not compatible. The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.
Make MS give them a free upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade to a working operating system compatible with their hardware. The idea that MS should pay for hardware upgrades is plain old silly.
No it isn't. It is a very simple one, charge based on harm. child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail.
To turn your own back on you: Child porn, depending on your definition i suppose, does not necessarialy imply abuse or harm. What if these girls took explicit pictures of themselves masturbating? It would certainly qualify as CP but it's also something most people expect teenagers to do (the act, not necessarialy the pictures). But who was abused and/or hurt? Yet that child is now guilty of creation and posession of CP.
Sexuality develops WAY before 18. Uptight controlling christian views aside (i do agree with you there) there's a huge disconnect between reality and legality. We're spending more time hurting people by making criminals out of them then we are actually helping people understand and make their own educated decisions.
The argument that a 15 year old is not sexually mature enough to make decisions about their body is rather laughable. Why? Because most people refuse to adequately educate a 15 year old about sexuality to properly make those decisions.
I really love it when there's some kind of teenage sex scandal that includes video (or any other questionable news)...and the news shows run the clips over and over blurring out things but clearly showing what's going on.
OH MY GOD - CAN YOU SEE THIS? SEE IT? LOOK AGAIN, AND AGAIN AND OMG AGAIN!!! IT"S FILTHY, SEE? DON'T YOU SEE RIGHT THERE HOW IT"S TERRIBLE?
No, they don't sensationalize this stuff nearly as much as video games or 'racy' TV...and we won't mention that they're in prime-time TV slots instead of post-10PM.
Lawmakers just try to appear to be doing something "good" so they'll get re-elected or can expand their political career.
You're not so likely to see a seasoned politician stand up and propose legalizing crack and prostitution because a significant portion of society deems those as "bad" and that same group feels it necessary to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
What's really funny is the separation of church and state thing. Religion is a set of beliefs that people live by and belief in some higher being. Yet if you don't mention God directly you can still impose religiously founded beliefs on people and it's OK.
Or how about just saying 'anyone under 18 can't do jack-squat about these laws that only impact them anyhow' so they get passed.
I really do find it interesting how our government can pass laws specifically for a portion of the population with no legal representation or ability to directly bring a lawsuit and fight. Yes, their PARENTS could do so, but their parents aren't the ones targeted by the law.
I'm not saying which side is right, but our 'protect the children' theme mimics other trends where a portion of the population was deemed unable to care for itself and thus subject to restrictions, modified or lessened civil rights, different punishments...and so on.
Actually, one could make the argument that all these laws are actually teaching children to be criminals. And potentially worse: teaching them to disregard laws, disrespect decision makers, and that they're being forced to live by rules they disagree with (perhaps even rightly so).
I don't blame violent video games for making children into criminals - I blame crap like this that desensitizes them to breaking other laws.
Granted the 'experts' often have their own axe to grind. You become an expert when you're capable of making arbitrary data say whatever you want it to:)
A very good point. Classic literature is filled with violence and worse. Heck, we read Cantebury Tales in high school and that's filled with Bad Things. Should we ban or burn books while we're at it?
Besides, making cigarette sales to minors illegal certainly hasn't eliminated that issue...and they're a physical consumable. A video game otoh is a much less frequent purchase, can be shared among people (not legally but...) and p2p entirely bypasses the restrictions anyhow.
So maybe instead they should just ask parents to parent.
Actually, B&B got some heat after some kid set his house on fire emulating them. After that they didn't run around saying 'fire fire uhhh...fire FIRE FFFFIRE' so much. In one episode butthead even yells at beavis 'you're going to get us in trouble again dumbass' as beavis is toying with another fire rant/whatever.
Granted it was some kid left home alone with matches or a lighter available (I still entirely blame the parents) but there was still some hysteria back then, even if it was less than today.
What about things like defamation or slander? Screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater is a popular one too.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support freedom of speech, religion, etc. but it's a fair question to pose if you want to call freedom of speech absolute. Should I have the right to announce on TV that you're a gay transexual pregnant with your own father's child if it's untrue? (if it is, Jerry Springer is looking for you)
Personally I think respect and support the right to say anything true or thought to be true and express any belief opinion or similar with the caveat that you're responsible if you knowingly mis-represent facts and it causes harm to others...or something like that.
Duh. Rich people are richer than you and I because they don't spend all their money on silly crap!
On a slightly more serious note - a prius does not well serve the need of someone who's wealthy enough to *at least* spend his time being driven around in a town car, if not a limo. Luxury - by definition - is the excess of resources.
People conserve for 2 reasons - 1) when they have no choice 2) because they believe it is something they should do.
Yes, and that fixed cost is based on plant output. This means that a more efficient or clean plant actually pays an operating penalty over a cheaper but less efficient model.
Overall, many things we do and use get subsidies from the gov...but that money still comes from tax payers so it's not like it's magic. You and I still pay for the services or products directly and in-directly in the end.
Ah, and part two. Let's see. Yankee Rowe was the third commercial plant built in the US and decomm'd 15ish years ago. It was shut down early due to embrittlement issues. Using this as a meterstick might be off a bit. In the end, if a plant cost more to build and decomm than the power it put it, it wouldn't be worth building as a commercial plant - would it?
They are waiting to finish the decomm on TMI for the other reactor to shut down because it's cheaper to do both at once. Getting people and equipment on-site, running the project...and so on. Pretty simple ecconomics, sorry you don't understand. Your FUD is still based on loose rumor, speculation, and "ZOMG COULD WE HAVE CRITICALITY?!?!?!111oneoneone". Core debris ~= fissible uranium. Obviously if people keep estimating the amount of junk in there and getting wildly different results those concolusions deserve little merrit. *yawn*
Oh, spent fuel pools. That's not *quite* the same thing but you still fail on physics. Uranium getting hotter by itself doesn't make increase criticality.
Demolition costs... another yawn. Start comparing total energy in to total energy out - including transportation of fuel and get back to me. Nuclear is *far* more energy dense and, if you include breeder reactors, actually CREATES more fuel than it uses. Cry elsewhere about nuclear proliferation, it's not relevant to this debate.
You "spelt" out what? Now, normally I don't play spelling police but to spell THAT wrong...i actually laughed out loud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt
So anyhow, yes the filter replacment was a sign something was not operating as intended. Yes the manager should have investigated. I'm not saying we should close our eyes and hope nuclear plans just work without monitoring or some guidelines. However when regulations waste time dictation what kind of toilet paper should be used and other asinine things... or require months of work just to check on something that could be done simply and quickly - they're not always working towards their intended goal. I understand you fully, you simply fail to understand that I understand other things you do not and therefore disagree with you.
And to wrap up, your 'fanbio' dismissal is cute, comical, and shows you're more interested in calling names than actually examining the fundamental basis for your claims. Sure you can fall off the edge of the earth if you assume it's flat and finite. The long line of people defending nuclear power have failed to convince you because there's plenty of nonsense out there that feeds people like you. Don't blame us for your ignorance.
Oh, bring on the "more" because... well i'm stuck in a boring training class today with some time to kill.
You still mis-understand radiation. It's not something that just floats around inside a box until you open it. The containment building might be contaminated and need to be carefully decomissioned, but just because you do doesn't mean the radiation that was 'stored' floats out and and kills everyone. You further show your ignorance by saying 'tritaed waters remains radioactive for 248 years'. Any knowledgable person talks about half-lives. meh.
As for the milk/water nonsense - milk is MOSTLY water. Heck, the human body is 70-something % water. Stop and think, eh? Krypton-85... has a shorter half-life than tritium and the scary gamma decay you're talking about is a miniscule % of it's decay and actually less energetic than it's beta decay.
Ah, on to the coal vs. nuclear argument...I love this one. See, coal plants have a smokestack that the waste products are dumped out of. Coal + air --> fumes up smokestack. Trace amounts of uranium (and other nasties) exist natually in coal. Some of that winds up floating up into the air. Nuclear plant fuel in -> energy out. Nothing burns, nothing is emmitted other than perhaps a miniscule amount of trace radiation that penetrates the shielding. This is minimal enough that people can work IN the plant for 20 years and not receive a meaningful dose. I'd *LOVE* to see actual proof that reactors are leaking radiation up their cooling towers. Keeping in mind those cooling towers run on a secondary loop - not the primary. To say the whole nuclear industry guesstimates it's release of radioactive substances based on a 20 year old computer program developed after plants had been in operatoin for 20+ years is utter and complete nonsense. Just because the sun tan comparison is often cited doesn't mean it's wrong. Making fun of it doesn't lend you and credibility either.
Ah, your 'fallout' comment is cute but i digress. NY does NOT have the highest incident rate of cancer per statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov - Main holds that title. NY is #13. Spew nonsense elsewhere please. You state that nuclear power causes cancer but fail to show any reasonable logic linking the two. Just because you put it in bold doesn't make it true - even on/. you need bold italic caps to ensure something is true. (sic)
Satan's cum? ROFL. Now you're just spouting nonsense. I'm fully aware of how dangerous radioactive substances are. I'm also aware of the physics behind their behavior which you clearly are not. There are plenty of other toxic substances out there, radiation just gets more attention because... well you can use it to make shit explode in a most spectacular way.
I'm glad i've opened a new 'line of attack' for you to show your ignorance. This is nothing about fanboi bla bla bla. It's reality. Given the choice between a magic box that provides limitless power and a nuclear plant, sure - give me the box. I know nuclear has some danger (so does crossing the street) but we're quite capable of using appropriate safety measures to put the danger in check. 'alternative energy' is cute, but utterly unable to meet our power demands within the next 20 years. So other than burning coal (which perhaps we can agree isn't the best thing for us?) what do you propose? Go back to living by candle light and riding horses?
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: This post makes the assumption that Windows7 sh!t version really is planned to exist and really will limit you to 3 open apps.
It's 2009. In theory we're making "progress" with technology. The basic function of an OS is to provide a standard framework on which programs can run. All the fancy UI tweaks, audio and video nonsense, bla bla bla is extra. You're going to give them all the extras but limit the basic, core functionality of your software. Really, I don't understand why we need multiple versions of the OS to begin with. If you want to have add-on software...well SELL THAT - separately. Everyone buys W7 for whatever (reasonable) price. Sell an add-on pack that includes...well whatever other crap you want to consider value-add. This way if someone buys a computer and later on decides they need XYZ functionality they can just buy that and not have to reinstall (or hack) windows.
I suppose my underlying point is that it's way past time for an OS to be transparant to the end user. Give them extra software and capability if you want, but no user should need to worry about "oh noes, did I get the right windoez version? Is it going to stop my computer from doing cool things?" when a computer is delivered to their house.
Hey, car analogy! It's a 2009 Ferrari with a 1995 geo metro engine. Except even drug addicted rock stars crash ferrari's less often than windows and vista/W7 are more akin to a UPS delivery truck with fancy decals on the side. Big, ugly, and slow with valuable but hidden/inaccessible content and a fancy look on the outside disguising it all.
Oh, and 3 programs excluding AV? Ok, so let's also exempt anti-spyware, firewall, and disc encryption tools. I run at least 2 chat client, MSIE, P2P (closing and restarting screws up xfers too), webcam program that insists on coming up, solitare or other games...
Oh please.
We all know that billboard would have been appropriate for a good many years before the recession.
Of course, 'give me your tired and poor' came from a time when simply being in the US didn't guarantee a higher standard of living and a "good life". You actually had to work for it once you got here.
Anyone who claims there's not enough skilled workers to fill the necessary positions should look at the recent layoff numbers in the US. Employment dropped almost 2 million jobs in the past 4 months. I'd assume at fair percentage of them are IT or other 'skilled' workers that could fill or quickly cross-train to fill these H1B jobs. I haven't heard any companies rejoicing 'oh, lots of US workers we can hire - let's retire H1B because it's more expensive to get those people'. Have you? Companies have shown they're *clearly* tied to their P&L before anything else so if H1B was more expensive why are they still using it?
All respect, but you're mistaken on several points.
LEDs are more efficient at LOWER drive currents. Go look up data sheets on common CREE, Luxeon, Lamina, and so on if you don't believe me. Some more than others, CREE is nice that it's close to linear. PWM is a good way to control brightness though because it's more precise. LEDs have a fairly narrow voltage range and current climbs exponentially as voltage changes - so a linear resistance change makes it very difficult to control. PWM solves this problem nicely.
Most LED's do not contain circuitry unless you're referring to the junction itself. Exceptions for the "LED Bulbs" for flashlight upgrades and similar. It's the job of the controller to maintain current, PWM % and so on to get the right lighting you desire. A simple resistor is a bad idea when you're pushing beyond the 1mA cheapy green LEDs.
A 120Hz light source from a LED would probably cause fun headaches, you need to move the frequency much higher. Not an issue for a solid state device though.
And finally, they most certainly do have warm light LEDs. They're a bit less bright in some cases, but not to the point of unusability.
A car without an engine can not be used as intended at all (though you could live in it i suppose!). Starcraft without a CD key can not be played.
It's not like these computers sat on a shelf unused just because areo didn't run. I'm not saying the sticker wasn't unclear and the process was done correctly but the computers are still USABLE.
I hate car analogies but you're dead on. After all, they show an Altima driving like a race car with GPS and full leather in one commercial, then sayhow it gets amazing gas mileage in another, while starting at the low, low price of $18k.
Granted 18K gets you neigher the 275HP nor hybrid engine but people generally aren't so stupid as to walk into a dealership and buy the first car on the lot in the color they want expecting everything int he commercial. Why are computers so different?
Really, so even though tons of people illegally got beta copies from p2p and plenty of others legitimately got copies...HP, Compaq, Dell, and so on were totally unable to get a copy to try on their hardware? Sounds more like people should be going after the hardware manufacturers for compensation and those manufacturers might go after MS to put some bit of it back in their pocket.
But...since our wonderful legal system makes it much more profitable to dump all the blame on a single entity instead of multiple MS gets all the blame here. No lawyer wants to sue every hardware manufacturer that put a vista ready sticker on their computers.
Yes, a consumer who blindly and broadly interprets a sticker should be given something for nothing. That's what you're suggesting after all.
If you want to argue consumers should be given what they paid for...well that's listed on the box. Unfortunately there's a conflict as the hardware specs explicitly detail what's in the box and a 'vista capable' sticker vaugely implies they're capable of doing something they're not. Well, partially - because vista will actually run, but not all the features will be available. Did the sticker say 'aero capable'? Did a follow-up manual inside the box say it would boot in x seconds, run benchmark y at a certain speed, run the UI with these exact features? No. None of that was explicitly guaranteed.
In the end, the computer HARDWARE is exactly as specified. The software you might call defective - so give consumers a refund or replacement for the defective part. I fail to see why a company should be liable for more than their ill-gotten profits. If MS made $50 per computer (even gross, generally net is used for damages) then fine them that much and refund it to the consumers.
So again, the idea the a software OEM should be liable for hardware sold at retail is SILLY.
Joe sixpack should maybe do a little research before spending his money. God forbid a consumer take responsibility for his/her actions. I'm so sick of everyone wanting a hand-out because they're too lazy to even *think* for themselves much less learn or understand something.
Besides, most retail places have laptops on display for you to look at or mess with. It's simple enough to 'test drive' one and realize it's not fast enough for what you want to do.
No, the hardware specs were exactly listed in pretty much every case. Look at an add for a computer - it'll tell you hard drive, memory, CPU, monitor size, etc. It's all explicitly listed. There was no question as to what the hardware was that was being sold.
The actual issue here is that these computers won't run aero - that 'vista capable' implies running the whole OS and all the features. Yes, it was a sneaky way to help computer sales. I'm not disagreeing that it was poorly done. However, it's a sticker with two words on it. It's not a 20-page document detailing the exact behavior, capabilities, and so on of the hardware/software interaction. MS didn't sell the build, distribute, or sell hardware. I would require them to provide an workable OS (XP would be great on most of those computers) or refund of the price of the OS that's not working (provided the consumer stops using it).
Really, people just want something for nothing again - as usual. I mean, you can't expect a layman to understand that a $400 computer is not as good as a $3000 computer. That's simply not reasonable. I would expect a $400 computer to be just as fast - after all, they shouldn't sell it if it's not perfect. One can also not expect consumers to do any research about what they're buying. /sarcasm ... So a car analogy! The retarded smart cars are 'highway legal' but they struggle to hit 65-70mph that most people drive in my state. Taking one of those on a major highway is risky and far more dangerous than driving a "real" car if 2-ton SUV's are flying around to pass. I suppose everyone who bought one of those should be upgraded to a bigger vehicle for free?
Should they be held responsible? Yes. For the cost of the operating system that's not compatible. The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.
Make MS give them a free upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade to a working operating system compatible with their hardware. The idea that MS should pay for hardware upgrades is plain old silly.
Hey, it's "vista capable" so stfu.
To turn your own back on you: Child porn, depending on your definition i suppose, does not necessarialy imply abuse or harm. What if these girls took explicit pictures of themselves masturbating? It would certainly qualify as CP but it's also something most people expect teenagers to do (the act, not necessarialy the pictures). But who was abused and/or hurt? Yet that child is now guilty of creation and posession of CP.
Sexuality develops WAY before 18. Uptight controlling christian views aside (i do agree with you there) there's a huge disconnect between reality and legality. We're spending more time hurting people by making criminals out of them then we are actually helping people understand and make their own educated decisions.
The argument that a 15 year old is not sexually mature enough to make decisions about their body is rather laughable. Why? Because most people refuse to adequately educate a 15 year old about sexuality to properly make those decisions.
I really love it when there's some kind of teenage sex scandal that includes video (or any other questionable news)...and the news shows run the clips over and over blurring out things but clearly showing what's going on.
OH MY GOD - CAN YOU SEE THIS? SEE IT? LOOK AGAIN, AND AGAIN AND OMG AGAIN!!! IT"S FILTHY, SEE? DON'T YOU SEE RIGHT THERE HOW IT"S TERRIBLE?
No, they don't sensationalize this stuff nearly as much as video games or 'racy' TV...and we won't mention that they're in prime-time TV slots instead of post-10PM.
Lawmakers just try to appear to be doing something "good" so they'll get re-elected or can expand their political career.
You're not so likely to see a seasoned politician stand up and propose legalizing crack and prostitution because a significant portion of society deems those as "bad" and that same group feels it necessary to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
What's really funny is the separation of church and state thing. Religion is a set of beliefs that people live by and belief in some higher being. Yet if you don't mention God directly you can still impose religiously founded beliefs on people and it's OK.
Or how about just saying 'anyone under 18 can't do jack-squat about these laws that only impact them anyhow' so they get passed.
I really do find it interesting how our government can pass laws specifically for a portion of the population with no legal representation or ability to directly bring a lawsuit and fight. Yes, their PARENTS could do so, but their parents aren't the ones targeted by the law.
I'm not saying which side is right, but our 'protect the children' theme mimics other trends where a portion of the population was deemed unable to care for itself and thus subject to restrictions, modified or lessened civil rights, different punishments...and so on.
Actually, one could make the argument that all these laws are actually teaching children to be criminals. And potentially worse: teaching them to disregard laws, disrespect decision makers, and that they're being forced to live by rules they disagree with (perhaps even rightly so).
I don't blame violent video games for making children into criminals - I blame crap like this that desensitizes them to breaking other laws.
Granted the 'experts' often have their own axe to grind. You become an expert when you're capable of making arbitrary data say whatever you want it to :)
A very good point. Classic literature is filled with violence and worse. Heck, we read Cantebury Tales in high school and that's filled with Bad Things. Should we ban or burn books while we're at it?
Besides, making cigarette sales to minors illegal certainly hasn't eliminated that issue...and they're a physical consumable. A video game otoh is a much less frequent purchase, can be shared among people (not legally but...) and p2p entirely bypasses the restrictions anyhow.
So maybe instead they should just ask parents to parent.
Actually, B&B got some heat after some kid set his house on fire emulating them. After that they didn't run around saying 'fire fire uhhh...fire FIRE FFFFIRE' so much. In one episode butthead even yells at beavis 'you're going to get us in trouble again dumbass' as beavis is toying with another fire rant/whatever.
Granted it was some kid left home alone with matches or a lighter available (I still entirely blame the parents) but there was still some hysteria back then, even if it was less than today.
What about things like defamation or slander? Screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater is a popular one too.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support freedom of speech, religion, etc. but it's a fair question to pose if you want to call freedom of speech absolute. Should I have the right to announce on TV that you're a gay transexual pregnant with your own father's child if it's untrue? (if it is, Jerry Springer is looking for you)
Personally I think respect and support the right to say anything true or thought to be true and express any belief opinion or similar with the caveat that you're responsible if you knowingly mis-represent facts and it causes harm to others...or something like that.
Duh. Rich people are richer than you and I because they don't spend all their money on silly crap!
On a slightly more serious note - a prius does not well serve the need of someone who's wealthy enough to *at least* spend his time being driven around in a town car, if not a limo. Luxury - by definition - is the excess of resources.
People conserve for 2 reasons - 1) when they have no choice 2) because they believe it is something they should do.
Yes, and that fixed cost is based on plant output. This means that a more efficient or clean plant actually pays an operating penalty over a cheaper but less efficient model.
Overall, many things we do and use get subsidies from the gov...but that money still comes from tax payers so it's not like it's magic. You and I still pay for the services or products directly and in-directly in the end.
Ah, and part two. Let's see. Yankee Rowe was the third commercial plant built in the US and decomm'd 15ish years ago. It was shut down early due to embrittlement issues. Using this as a meterstick might be off a bit. In the end, if a plant cost more to build and decomm than the power it put it, it wouldn't be worth building as a commercial plant - would it?
They are waiting to finish the decomm on TMI for the other reactor to shut down because it's cheaper to do both at once. Getting people and equipment on-site, running the project...and so on. Pretty simple ecconomics, sorry you don't understand. Your FUD is still based on loose rumor, speculation, and "ZOMG COULD WE HAVE CRITICALITY?!?!?!111oneoneone". Core debris ~= fissible uranium. Obviously if people keep estimating the amount of junk in there and getting wildly different results those concolusions deserve little merrit. *yawn*
Oh, spent fuel pools. That's not *quite* the same thing but you still fail on physics. Uranium getting hotter by itself doesn't make increase criticality.
Demolition costs ... another yawn. Start comparing total energy in to total energy out - including transportation of fuel and get back to me. Nuclear is *far* more energy dense and, if you include breeder reactors, actually CREATES more fuel than it uses. Cry elsewhere about nuclear proliferation, it's not relevant to this debate.
You "spelt" out what? Now, normally I don't play spelling police but to spell THAT wrong...i actually laughed out loud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt
So anyhow, yes the filter replacment was a sign something was not operating as intended. Yes the manager should have investigated. I'm not saying we should close our eyes and hope nuclear plans just work without monitoring or some guidelines. However when regulations waste time dictation what kind of toilet paper should be used and other asinine things ... or require months of work just to check on something that could be done simply and quickly - they're not always working towards their intended goal. I understand you fully, you simply fail to understand that I understand other things you do not and therefore disagree with you.
And to wrap up, your 'fanbio' dismissal is cute, comical, and shows you're more interested in calling names than actually examining the fundamental basis for your claims. Sure you can fall off the edge of the earth if you assume it's flat and finite. The long line of people defending nuclear power have failed to convince you because there's plenty of nonsense out there that feeds people like you. Don't blame us for your ignorance.
Oh, bring on the "more" because ... well i'm stuck in a boring training class today with some time to kill.
You still mis-understand radiation. It's not something that just floats around inside a box until you open it. The containment building might be contaminated and need to be carefully decomissioned, but just because you do doesn't mean the radiation that was 'stored' floats out and and kills everyone. You further show your ignorance by saying 'tritaed waters remains radioactive for 248 years'. Any knowledgable person talks about half-lives. meh.
As for the milk/water nonsense - milk is MOSTLY water. Heck, the human body is 70-something % water. Stop and think, eh? Krypton-85 ... has a shorter half-life than tritium and the scary gamma decay you're talking about is a miniscule % of it's decay and actually less energetic than it's beta decay.
Ah, on to the coal vs. nuclear argument...I love this one. See, coal plants have a smokestack that the waste products are dumped out of. Coal + air --> fumes up smokestack. Trace amounts of uranium (and other nasties) exist natually in coal. Some of that winds up floating up into the air. Nuclear plant fuel in -> energy out. Nothing burns, nothing is emmitted other than perhaps a miniscule amount of trace radiation that penetrates the shielding. This is minimal enough that people can work IN the plant for 20 years and not receive a meaningful dose. I'd *LOVE* to see actual proof that reactors are leaking radiation up their cooling towers. Keeping in mind those cooling towers run on a secondary loop - not the primary. To say the whole nuclear industry guesstimates it's release of radioactive substances based on a 20 year old computer program developed after plants had been in operatoin for 20+ years is utter and complete nonsense. Just because the sun tan comparison is often cited doesn't mean it's wrong. Making fun of it doesn't lend you and credibility either.
Ah, your 'fallout' comment is cute but i digress. NY does NOT have the highest incident rate of cancer per statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov - Main holds that title. NY is #13. Spew nonsense elsewhere please. You state that nuclear power causes cancer but fail to show any reasonable logic linking the two. Just because you put it in bold doesn't make it true - even on /. you need bold italic caps to ensure something is true. (sic)
Satan's cum? ROFL. Now you're just spouting nonsense. I'm fully aware of how dangerous radioactive substances are. I'm also aware of the physics behind their behavior which you clearly are not. There are plenty of other toxic substances out there, radiation just gets more attention because ... well you can use it to make shit explode in a most spectacular way.
I'm glad i've opened a new 'line of attack' for you to show your ignorance. This is nothing about fanboi bla bla bla. It's reality. Given the choice between a magic box that provides limitless power and a nuclear plant, sure - give me the box. I know nuclear has some danger (so does crossing the street) but we're quite capable of using appropriate safety measures to put the danger in check. 'alternative energy' is cute, but utterly unable to meet our power demands within the next 20 years. So other than burning coal (which perhaps we can agree isn't the best thing for us?) what do you propose? Go back to living by candle light and riding horses?
Really? I remember watching them in the 80's (dammit, dating myself) and seeing him get crushed, run over, hit the ground and go accordian, etc.
Stuff they won't show kids today. But the ...strange... and epic violence of pokemon is ok somehow. :)