That's just pedantic. You clearly understood the meaning of his sentence (a negligible amount of harmful emissions, if any, is emitted by nuclear power plants), yet you picked up on its phrasing. Way to go to try making a solid argument.
I'd say it's you that's failing to understand this. At current usage rates we have about 40 years worth. We can get more, a lot more, but only at dramatically increased prices. Nuclear power is already too expensive, driving up fuel costs will make it worse.
Did you just ignore all that was said in the comments? We currently use a fraction of whatever energy is actually contained in uranium. Reading up on the subject, you'd see a fuel rod is considered "used" after just 5% of it was consumed. If we made this, say, 70%, we'd have enough uranium for 560 years, assuming we have discovered all mineable deposits.
I'm sure the Ukrainians would dispute that "fact".
Actually, current complaints indeed have no basis. As it was stated numerous times here, reactors have evolved MUCH since Chernobyl. What's left is a lot of fear-mongering and general ignorance, but newer reactors are just about as safe as any other source. A coal plant can burn down, a natural gas/oil plant can literally go down in flames, hydroelectric dams can break down to catastrophic consequences, etc. There's no solution without negative impacts, you just need to choose the best one of the lot.
It might be more "intuitive" (and I'd dare to say it only seems to be on paper, most people would find it less intuitive unless carefully explained and would probably not listen to the explanations anyways), but it still doesn't change anything...
What exactly is making that protection any different? Just like BD+, FairPlay and any other DRM, it will be cracked, it will be exploited and we'll just end up with a slightly fancier but ultimately useless DRM that does what all older solutions did: harm the actual consumers while not bothering the pirates.
Plus, regardless of any form of cracking, there's still that little thing called the analog hole...
I was part of the "teenager" definition just few years ago and I believe I sent... 3 SMS in my whole life. Most of my friends also barely sent a handful, the worst maybe sent 10 per day. 2000 is just insane.
Please remember that HDMI is just a digital HD cable technology! The component (YPbPr) cables that still come with the consoles ARE also HD, just analog HD. It still looks great on a HDTV; the biggest difference is that you don't absolutely need a TV made in the last 4 years to benefit from it as CRTs and older LCD/Plasma TVs had the connectors too.
Case in point, my Xbox 360 is plugged to my 52" HDTV through component connectors and the picture is very sharp and vivid. It may not equal HDMI, but most consumers won't actually notice or mind.
Remember that 4GB limit includes *all* RAM, not just actual computer RAM. Video cards are getting absurdly large VRAM nowadays, which further brings the limit down. My already 2-year old 8800GTX has 768mb of RAM; many current GPUs have 1gb of memory, and no, not just enthusiast cards. With all RAM accounted for, I could only see 3gb of system memory overall on XP 32 bits. Considering my mom's 1-year old laptop has 3gb, we're much closer to the breaking point than you seem to think.
I disagree. It might not be scary, but it is still a totally dirty practise. If I pay for 10mbit/s, I intend to be able to use it at any time for any reason. Otherwise, don't sell me 10mbit/s! Sell me what you can provide, anything else should be considered as misrepresentation.
I actually think that, while you are right that failure time will always reach 100% at one point, the current generation of consoles is not old enough to have this problem apply. The Xbox 360 was not released that long ago; the results are therefore pretty meaningful. See it this way: in a year, would the PS3's or the Wii's failure rate reach 54%? I doubt it. What we have is an overall measurement of 360 reliability: it's telling you that if you buy one, you're likely to have to repair it at one point in its expected usage lifetime. I want my console to at least live through its whole generation if bought from day one. Anything less means there's a problem somewhere. As an anecdotal remark, I can tell your firsthand that the results don't seem all that skewed by the non-random respondents: most of my friends who bought a 360 had to replace it or repair it. I think only one or two managed to keep it intact, plus myself.
For your information, it's up to the developer to introduce 1080i support in the games, not Sony. I know Criterion added 1080i support to Burnout Paradise in a patch, which proves it can be done.
*cough* Where were you? FF XIII is coming to the Xbox 360 too, at least in Europe and NA.
Not to say there aren't plenty of nice games on the PS3 (I own more games for that console than the 360, actually), but FF XIII isn't one of those exclusives.
I don't get the point of parental controls. Either the parents use the iPhone and seldom give it to their children (the purpose of a cellphone is to have it always at hand, no?), or the phone is already the child's device. In the former case, the probability of the child finding the app, opening it and discovering naughy words (and if he/she is 7 or above, he/she probably knows them all already anyways) is very small. In the second case, the parents probably don't even know how the iPhone works, let alone how to activate parental controls.
Parental controls only work when the children and the parents use one device often, such as a TV box or a computer.
Suggesting that because Murdoch has been successful in the printed news buisness, he will automatically be successful in the online news business (if business there is) is just a fallacy. There is nothing that proves the guy has any understanding of the difference between the Internet and paper news. He just looks utterly lost and trailing behind, trying to keep his empire from falling apart under its own inertia.
What Murdoch probably does not see is that even if ALL the news sites became paid-for, people could still get a lot of their information for free. Who needs regurgitated press releases? You might as well read them yourself. Any "fluff" article usually lacks any sort of depth in old newspapers; blogs, which are mostly built for free as a hobby or which are part of a company's marketing strategy, will give far more insight than any article written by a clueless journalist. What exactly is missing to fill? Critics are a dime a dozen and I'm sure if the large news networks decided to ask for money, some other critics would fill their shoes for free. Oh, I know! You won't have your crosswords and "find the differences" games... Oh, that's sad isn't it?
The largest problem is that, since the very beginning, we have been monetizing information, something which cannot be monetized. Before the advent of the Internet, this was very possible through monetizing the medium that carries the information. However, the Internet changes this. Since anyone with 10 minutes on their hands can now produce any piece of information they want (no more do we need hundreds of hours to copy a book or huge presses to print the papers), information goes back to its free state. It's inevitable.
IANAL, but I've been wondering. Say you download some music using BitTorrent and immediately after you've completed it, you close the software off. Assuming it wasn't on for long, you probably would not have shared enough data to even give a song to anyone.
With that in mind, can anyone tell me if you can still be considered guilty of sharing the music if you have not actually shared a single full song, only downloaded them? I mean, if you share 1% of a few songs, you've just sent out random data, you didn't technically share a song.
While I do love my Subversion server, for something like asked here, Mercurial seems like the perfect choice. Subversion distributed on multiple hosts with no central server, in essence!
Do remember that the USA are 232 times larger than the Netherlands... Let's say creating bike lanes will take a TAD longer and cost a very small amount more than in your home country./sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
Zero, except? Wow, great argument there, sparky.
That's just pedantic. You clearly understood the meaning of his sentence (a negligible amount of harmful emissions, if any, is emitted by nuclear power plants), yet you picked up on its phrasing. Way to go to try making a solid argument.
I'd say it's you that's failing to understand this. At current usage rates we have about 40 years worth. We can get more, a lot more, but only at dramatically increased prices. Nuclear power is already too expensive, driving up fuel costs will make it worse.
Did you just ignore all that was said in the comments? We currently use a fraction of whatever energy is actually contained in uranium. Reading up on the subject, you'd see a fuel rod is considered "used" after just 5% of it was consumed. If we made this, say, 70%, we'd have enough uranium for 560 years, assuming we have discovered all mineable deposits.
I'm sure the Ukrainians would dispute that "fact".
Actually, current complaints indeed have no basis. As it was stated numerous times here, reactors have evolved MUCH since Chernobyl. What's left is a lot of fear-mongering and general ignorance, but newer reactors are just about as safe as any other source. A coal plant can burn down, a natural gas/oil plant can literally go down in flames, hydroelectric dams can break down to catastrophic consequences, etc. There's no solution without negative impacts, you just need to choose the best one of the lot.
And of course mining coal isn't a hazardous occupation with long-term health effects? Oh, look!
It might be more "intuitive" (and I'd dare to say it only seems to be on paper, most people would find it less intuitive unless carefully explained and would probably not listen to the explanations anyways), but it still doesn't change anything...
What exactly is making that protection any different? Just like BD+, FairPlay and any other DRM, it will be cracked, it will be exploited and we'll just end up with a slightly fancier but ultimately useless DRM that does what all older solutions did: harm the actual consumers while not bothering the pirates.
Plus, regardless of any form of cracking, there's still that little thing called the analog hole...
I was part of the "teenager" definition just few years ago and I believe I sent... 3 SMS in my whole life. Most of my friends also barely sent a handful, the worst maybe sent 10 per day. 2000 is just insane.
Please remember that HDMI is just a digital HD cable technology! The component (YPbPr) cables that still come with the consoles ARE also HD, just analog HD. It still looks great on a HDTV; the biggest difference is that you don't absolutely need a TV made in the last 4 years to benefit from it as CRTs and older LCD/Plasma TVs had the connectors too.
Case in point, my Xbox 360 is plugged to my 52" HDTV through component connectors and the picture is very sharp and vivid. It may not equal HDMI, but most consumers won't actually notice or mind.
Wait, the Canadian government actually doing something that does not advantage large corporations? Are you serious?
Add Silverlight VS Flash to the mix ;)
I have to say I'm a heavy Windows user and like Windows 7 a lot, but these kinds of campaigns really disgust me. And I was thinking about buying W7...
Probably the same which took down GMail!
Remember that 4GB limit includes *all* RAM, not just actual computer RAM. Video cards are getting absurdly large VRAM nowadays, which further brings the limit down. My already 2-year old 8800GTX has 768mb of RAM; many current GPUs have 1gb of memory, and no, not just enthusiast cards. With all RAM accounted for, I could only see 3gb of system memory overall on XP 32 bits. Considering my mom's 1-year old laptop has 3gb, we're much closer to the breaking point than you seem to think.
I disagree. It might not be scary, but it is still a totally dirty practise. If I pay for 10mbit/s, I intend to be able to use it at any time for any reason. Otherwise, don't sell me 10mbit/s! Sell me what you can provide, anything else should be considered as misrepresentation.
I know Wikipedia is often shunned, but this page might still give you some insight.
What's saying it'll always be on your chest? First it's not all that large already, second it'll only shrink down.
At one point, it'd be not so insane to see it built-in your shirt or attached to your glasses.
I actually think that, while you are right that failure time will always reach 100% at one point, the current generation of consoles is not old enough to have this problem apply. The Xbox 360 was not released that long ago; the results are therefore pretty meaningful. See it this way: in a year, would the PS3's or the Wii's failure rate reach 54%? I doubt it. What we have is an overall measurement of 360 reliability: it's telling you that if you buy one, you're likely to have to repair it at one point in its expected usage lifetime. I want my console to at least live through its whole generation if bought from day one. Anything less means there's a problem somewhere. As an anecdotal remark, I can tell your firsthand that the results don't seem all that skewed by the non-random respondents: most of my friends who bought a 360 had to replace it or repair it. I think only one or two managed to keep it intact, plus myself.
Am I alone who played Fable 2 and was completely turned off by the long, VERY frequent loading times? I think I spent more time waiting than playing.
For your information, it's up to the developer to introduce 1080i support in the games, not Sony. I know Criterion added 1080i support to Burnout Paradise in a patch, which proves it can be done.
*cough* Where were you? FF XIII is coming to the Xbox 360 too, at least in Europe and NA.
Not to say there aren't plenty of nice games on the PS3 (I own more games for that console than the 360, actually), but FF XIII isn't one of those exclusives.
I knew that big blue E on my desktop was the definition of evil, and now I have proof!
My Xbox 360 is not connected to the Internet. Good luck spying on me with that.
My cable box *has* to be connected to the cable network to do anything.
I don't get the point of parental controls. Either the parents use the iPhone and seldom give it to their children (the purpose of a cellphone is to have it always at hand, no?), or the phone is already the child's device. In the former case, the probability of the child finding the app, opening it and discovering naughy words (and if he/she is 7 or above, he/she probably knows them all already anyways) is very small. In the second case, the parents probably don't even know how the iPhone works, let alone how to activate parental controls.
Parental controls only work when the children and the parents use one device often, such as a TV box or a computer.
Suggesting that because Murdoch has been successful in the printed news buisness, he will automatically be successful in the online news business (if business there is) is just a fallacy. There is nothing that proves the guy has any understanding of the difference between the Internet and paper news. He just looks utterly lost and trailing behind, trying to keep his empire from falling apart under its own inertia.
What Murdoch probably does not see is that even if ALL the news sites became paid-for, people could still get a lot of their information for free. Who needs regurgitated press releases? You might as well read them yourself. Any "fluff" article usually lacks any sort of depth in old newspapers; blogs, which are mostly built for free as a hobby or which are part of a company's marketing strategy, will give far more insight than any article written by a clueless journalist. What exactly is missing to fill? Critics are a dime a dozen and I'm sure if the large news networks decided to ask for money, some other critics would fill their shoes for free. Oh, I know! You won't have your crosswords and "find the differences" games... Oh, that's sad isn't it?
The largest problem is that, since the very beginning, we have been monetizing information, something which cannot be monetized. Before the advent of the Internet, this was very possible through monetizing the medium that carries the information. However, the Internet changes this. Since anyone with 10 minutes on their hands can now produce any piece of information they want (no more do we need hundreds of hours to copy a book or huge presses to print the papers), information goes back to its free state. It's inevitable.
IANAL, but I've been wondering. Say you download some music using BitTorrent and immediately after you've completed it, you close the software off. Assuming it wasn't on for long, you probably would not have shared enough data to even give a song to anyone.
With that in mind, can anyone tell me if you can still be considered guilty of sharing the music if you have not actually shared a single full song, only downloaded them? I mean, if you share 1% of a few songs, you've just sent out random data, you didn't technically share a song.
Why don't I have mod points when I need them?
While I do love my Subversion server, for something like asked here, Mercurial seems like the perfect choice. Subversion distributed on multiple hosts with no central server, in essence!
Try Googling the T101H then...
Do remember that the USA are 232 times larger than the Netherlands... Let's say creating bike lanes will take a TAD longer and cost a very small amount more than in your home country. /sarcasm