I know it involves increased costs. Well, them's the breaks when you decide to deploy extremely energy-dense and toxic power sources. Pay to extract, pay to build, pay to clean up. Expensive business, nuclear.
Oh, and here's a handy little exercise for you. Try thinking of how dumping seawater from helicopters could be of any material use in cooling the core if there wasn't a containment breach....
Fuck sake. They have not been treating the reactor containment on certain reactors as suspect from the start. That's why the previous reports, fuckwit, report the containment integrity as "Not damaged". Go back and have a look at the website. You will find that the report status has changed from green to yellow -- those hi-glo colours are intended to help fuckwits like you spot the difference from report to report. And don't twat around trying to claim that that is an immaterial change.
Didn't respond to your substantive points, my arse.
Substantive points like "ooh it's all hearsay" to which I respond by showing how the information came from sites that are not hearsay at all?
Would criticising the fact that I replied with the posts rather than one be an example of a substantive point you were making, then? Or was it just pointless twattery to conceal the fact that your main substantive point, that the containment integrity was intact, was actually your wish rather than the reality as reported by the owners of the fucking site itself?
Cock, cock and thrice cock. Cock who fails to follow links. Cock who follows links and thinks he knows what he's read but fails to. Cock who follows links and then engages in pointless fucking obfuscation and flummery.
Care to enumerate the "half a dozen concepts, problems, wildly overblown scenarios and hysterical news reports into one thing"? Carefully, with quotes, so that it's possible to actually test your little assertion there? Gwaaaaaaaaaan, prove you're the man your mummy told you that you could be. Gwaaaaaaaaaan, do it properly.
Oh and by the way... if you think that being anonymous vs pseudonymous* protects you from the burning shame that comes from hearing people laughing at your stupidity.... that protection comes from being too fucking stupid to hear what they're saying to you in the first place.
[*"I'm anonymous. You're not" What a stupid thing to write.]
I *love* your point 3 for an example of someone failing to read a link they're presented with: "3. "Damage suspected"... the fucking containment is intact even if the reactor itself is damaged by fire..." The link presents you with a lovely table with separate rows for "core and fuel integrity" and "containment integrity". Yet you think I'm conflating the two.
Anonymous and unable to read, apparently. What part of "containment integrity" did you fail to understand, fuckwit? The containment integrity is reported by the people who own the fucking power station to have suspected damage.
That is not rumour or hearsay, it's the owners saying it. It is not the building alone, it's the actual fucking containment -- you know, not just the vessels, but the reinforced prestressed concrete that surrounds it. And it's a shitload more serious than some fucking bananas.
Twat. Anonymous twat who can't be arsed to follow links.
Ooooh look, it reports containment integrity at each unit at each of the two stations! And ooh look, it reports that at Units 2 and 3 at Station 1 the status is not "Not damaged" but "Damage suspected".
So oooh look, you've made yourself look like an even bigger twat -- in public
Well, I wish you were right and I had been fucking stupid. Sadly, though, it appears I was right and you were wrong: the suppression chamber at No2 reactor is reported to have been breached.
So time to take your head out of your ass, wipe off the turd, and be a bit more fucking humble, I reckon.
Actually, wood frame houses don't tend to collapse in quakes, although they do get washed away by tsunamis (as do all but the largest manmade structures)
Don't be so fucking stupid. What do you think happens to all the materiel inside a compromised containment structure (not compromised, my arse. The containment hull appears to be ok, we all hope and pray, but the outer layers certainly are damaged) if it gets hit by another earthquake and tsunami? Of course there could be a fucking breach, with all sorts of vile nasties getting carried out across large tracts of land.
Or, maybe, just maybe, if there'd been a vigorous anti-car lobby we'd have decent public transport. You know, railroads, monorails, light rail, underground railways, buses, shared car services, etc etc.
Ya know, the uranium ore doesn't just magic itself out of the ground and form itself into fuel rods. There are substantial carbon emissions associated with the extraction and processing of nuclear fuels.
I call bullshit. Uranium comes from the ground. Mining is an inherently high-risk activity, and I simply do not believe that no-one has ever died in the mining of uranium for commercial US use.
You are also ignoring the fact that risk = likelihood * severity. The potential severity of a nuclear accident is orders of magnitude higher than for any other form of power generation. I'm very glad the risk has never been fully realised, but the chance it may remains.
Ohhh, taxes is stealing. All taxes is stealing. Of course. There there. Best fuck off to Somalia or some other country where you can enjoy a life without the burden of taxation.
Negative taxes is a load of twunt anyway, based on the idea that if you're poor enough, you don't pay income tax and you get benefits. Income tax is typically the only tax that scales with income, hence the name. Lots of other taxes are unavoidable for people on low incomes, eg sales tax on non-discretionary items.
No, the iPod owes its success to a special type of first-mover advantage and network effects. When it came out, it was the first small, *properly* easy-to-use player with a decent capacity on the market. That was enough for it to start selling like hotcakes and grabbing share. Then the iTune ecosystem took off, and everyone else was locked out of the only network that mattered -- the network of access to songs people wanted to buy.
Quite right. I counted literally zero changes to the iPad 2 spec that were obviously responding to the Playbook's innovative feature set. So that's an enormous game change to the major product in the category right now.
narcc, with your blinding insight into the importance of usability in a post-PC world, I think it's time you dropped a line to Apple and took Jony Ive's job away from him. You clearly deserve it more than him.
Tell us more about this marvellous line about Apple not really having been able to challenge early leaders like RIM. It's a fascinating thesis.
That is one stupid fucking rejoinder. Of *course* a larger proportion of taxed income comes from the rich than the poor. That's because 1% of $1m is more than 1% of $10k.
But it's always better from a point-of-view of material comfort -- *always* -- to be earning, eg, $250k than $25k. At $250k, your take-home income at the end of each month is vastly in excess of what it would be at $25k. A 1% rise in marginal tax rate for someone earning $250k might piss them off, but it won't make a substantive difference to how they live their lives. For someone earning $25k, it will do just that, because, doh, their unavoidable costs will be a larger proportion of income.
Jeezus, and to think this used to be a tech forum. Fondleslab is what the Register has been calling the iPad forever. The OP was making an obvious reference.
Hunh? "Foreign" workers are cheap labour, compared to US workers. That's not a slur, it's a statement of fact. It's also separate from the question of whether they're underpaid. You're arguing they're not because they're better compensated than many of their compatriots and because costs-of-living are lower. However, they still by and large live a life that you wouldn't swap for yours.
Well. I have a 4 year old MacBook (home) and a 6m old Lenovo X201t (work). My MacBook, despite being cheaper, blows the Lenovo out of the water for build quality. So far, the lenovo has had a key come off and the screws holding in the video cable come out. The battery lasts 2.5hrs max. The macbook is as good as new. The battery lasts 4hrs still.
And the macbook feels like quality in the hand, while the lenovo feels cheap -- in the same way as a tin knife and fork do a perfectly satisfactory job of cutting up food, but feel horrible in the hand vs proper cutlery.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it involves increased costs. Well, them's the breaks when you decide to deploy extremely energy-dense and toxic power sources. Pay to extract, pay to build, pay to clean up. Expensive business, nuclear.
As the man says: "The Navy has no place for good losers! The Navy needs tough sons of bitches who can go out there and WIN!"
The true measure of safety is not "see how much it withstood" but "it is still safe?" and the answer is....not so much
I don't know what magnitude they should have prepared for, but it's clear that it was more than 8.2 and more than 9.0. That's the yardstick.
Oh, and here's a handy little exercise for you. Try thinking of how dumping seawater from helicopters could be of any material use in cooling the core if there wasn't a containment breach....
Fuck sake. They have not been treating the reactor containment on certain reactors as suspect from the start. That's why the previous reports, fuckwit, report the containment integrity as "Not damaged". Go back and have a look at the website. You will find that the report status has changed from green to yellow -- those hi-glo colours are intended to help fuckwits like you spot the difference from report to report. And don't twat around trying to claim that that is an immaterial change.
Didn't respond to your substantive points, my arse.
Substantive points like "ooh it's all hearsay" to which I respond by showing how the information came from sites that are not hearsay at all?
Would criticising the fact that I replied with the posts rather than one be an example of a substantive point you were making, then? Or was it just pointless twattery to conceal the fact that your main substantive point, that the containment integrity was intact, was actually your wish rather than the reality as reported by the owners of the fucking site itself?
Cock, cock and thrice cock.
Cock who fails to follow links.
Cock who follows links and thinks he knows what he's read but fails to.
Cock who follows links and then engages in pointless fucking obfuscation and flummery.
Care to enumerate the "half a dozen concepts, problems, wildly overblown scenarios and hysterical news reports into one thing"? Carefully, with quotes, so that it's possible to actually test your little assertion there? Gwaaaaaaaaaan, prove you're the man your mummy told you that you could be. Gwaaaaaaaaaan, do it properly.
Oh and by the way... if you think that being anonymous vs pseudonymous* protects you from the burning shame that comes from hearing people laughing at your stupidity .... that protection comes from being too fucking stupid to hear what they're saying to you in the first place.
[*"I'm anonymous. You're not" What a stupid thing to write.]
I *love* your point 3 for an example of someone failing to read a link they're presented with:
"3. "Damage suspected"... the fucking containment is intact even if the reactor itself is damaged by fire..."
The link presents you with a lovely table with separate rows for "core and fuel integrity" and "containment integrity". Yet you think I'm conflating the two.
Nobcheese.
Thick as pants bumptious twat.
Anonymous and unable to read, apparently. What part of "containment integrity" did you fail to understand, fuckwit? The containment integrity is reported by the people who own the fucking power station to have suspected damage.
That is not rumour or hearsay, it's the owners saying it. It is not the building alone, it's the actual fucking containment -- you know, not just the vessels, but the reinforced prestressed concrete that surrounds it. And it's a shitload more serious than some fucking bananas.
Twat. Anonymous twat who can't be arsed to follow links.
Oh, and do remind us all: which part of Defense in Depth is dousing the fucking reactors from helicopters?
Yeah, that's right, hearsay and rumour from TEPN:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300273535P.pdf
Ooooh look, it reports containment integrity at each unit at each of the two stations! And ooh look, it reports that at Units 2 and 3 at Station 1 the status is not "Not damaged" but "Damage suspected".
So oooh look, you've made yourself look like an even bigger twat -- in public
Well, I wish you were right and I had been fucking stupid. Sadly, though, it appears I was right and you were wrong: the suppression chamber at No2 reactor is reported to have been breached.
So time to take your head out of your ass, wipe off the turd, and be a bit more fucking humble, I reckon.
Actually, wood frame houses don't tend to collapse in quakes, although they do get washed away by tsunamis (as do all but the largest manmade structures)
Don't be so fucking stupid. What do you think happens to all the materiel inside a compromised containment structure (not compromised, my arse. The containment hull appears to be ok, we all hope and pray, but the outer layers certainly are damaged) if it gets hit by another earthquake and tsunami? Of course there could be a fucking breach, with all sorts of vile nasties getting carried out across large tracts of land.
Or, maybe, just maybe, if there'd been a vigorous anti-car lobby we'd have decent public transport. You know, railroads, monorails, light rail, underground railways, buses, shared car services, etc etc.
Ya know, the uranium ore doesn't just magic itself out of the ground and form itself into fuel rods. There are substantial carbon emissions associated with the extraction and processing of nuclear fuels.
You don't honestly think of BP as British, do you? BP is a transglobal corporation.
I call bullshit. Uranium comes from the ground. Mining is an inherently high-risk activity, and I simply do not believe that no-one has ever died in the mining of uranium for commercial US use.
You are also ignoring the fact that risk = likelihood * severity. The potential severity of a nuclear accident is orders of magnitude higher than for any other form of power generation. I'm very glad the risk has never been fully realised, but the chance it may remains.
Ohhh, taxes is stealing. All taxes is stealing. Of course. There there. Best fuck off to Somalia or some other country where you can enjoy a life without the burden of taxation.
Negative taxes is a load of twunt anyway, based on the idea that if you're poor enough, you don't pay income tax and you get benefits. Income tax is typically the only tax that scales with income, hence the name. Lots of other taxes are unavoidable for people on low incomes, eg sales tax on non-discretionary items.
No, the iPod owes its success to a special type of first-mover advantage and network effects. When it came out, it was the first small, *properly* easy-to-use player with a decent capacity on the market. That was enough for it to start selling like hotcakes and grabbing share. Then the iTune ecosystem took off, and everyone else was locked out of the only network that mattered -- the network of access to songs people wanted to buy.
Quite right. I counted literally zero changes to the iPad 2 spec that were obviously responding to the Playbook's innovative feature set. So that's an enormous game change to the major product in the category right now.
narcc, with your blinding insight into the importance of usability in a post-PC world, I think it's time you dropped a line to Apple and took Jony Ive's job away from him. You clearly deserve it more than him.
Tell us more about this marvellous line about Apple not really having been able to challenge early leaders like RIM. It's a fascinating thesis.
That is one stupid fucking rejoinder. Of *course* a larger proportion of taxed income comes from the rich than the poor. That's because 1% of $1m is more than 1% of $10k.
But it's always better from a point-of-view of material comfort -- *always* -- to be earning, eg, $250k than $25k. At $250k, your take-home income at the end of each month is vastly in excess of what it would be at $25k. A 1% rise in marginal tax rate for someone earning $250k might piss them off, but it won't make a substantive difference to how they live their lives. For someone earning $25k, it will do just that, because, doh, their unavoidable costs will be a larger proportion of income.
Jeezus, and to think this used to be a tech forum. Fondleslab is what the Register has been calling the iPad forever. The OP was making an obvious reference.
Hunh? "Foreign" workers are cheap labour, compared to US workers. That's not a slur, it's a statement of fact. It's also separate from the question of whether they're underpaid. You're arguing they're not because they're better compensated than many of their compatriots and because costs-of-living are lower. However, they still by and large live a life that you wouldn't swap for yours.
Well. I have a 4 year old MacBook (home) and a 6m old Lenovo X201t (work). My MacBook, despite being cheaper, blows the Lenovo out of the water for build quality. So far, the lenovo has had a key come off and the screws holding in the video cable come out. The battery lasts 2.5hrs max. The macbook is as good as new. The battery lasts 4hrs still.
And the macbook feels like quality in the hand, while the lenovo feels cheap -- in the same way as a tin knife and fork do a perfectly satisfactory job of cutting up food, but feel horrible in the hand vs proper cutlery.