>>Due to the speed of light, isn't there a limitation on how fast you can clock a CPU die? As I know, eventually you will run into problems maintaining synchronicity.
A nanosecond = one foot. (Take that, metric system!)
You can calculate the theoretical maximum thereby, by just plugging in clock rate and die size.
>>The reason noone is getting upset by the "diamond planet" is because noone really cares all that much - it doesn't affect them in their day-to-day lives.
Correct. One of the prevailing views on both the left and right is that if AGW is true, this implies we have to either get rid of our cars, or drive a lot less. (AGW -> !car) It's not a fringe belief, either - James Hansen himself wants to eliminate all fossil fuels, so hey, good luck driving your 50MPG Honda Civic with no gas. Have fun trying to get to work, or buy groceries. Etc., etc. The mistake" that right wing people make is that they don't like the conclusion (of having to give up their cars, over their dead bodies) and so reject the premise. It's a sort of Modus Tollens of the political sphere.
The problem is, of course, that people like Hansen are wrong. We don't need to eliminate all fossil fuels to stablize the global temperature at a livable level. We need to reduce it by about half, which, incidentally, is about what we produce from coal power plants. As Germany just demonstrated, it's a lot easier to replace your power infrastructure than it is to get people to stop driving cars.
The correct answer to AGW, therefore, suggests itself, which I call the Shaka Energy Plan: replace coal with nuclear, use coal for gasoline (keeping Virginia happy and us off foreign oil imports), and let people keep driving their cars.
>>Actually what climate scientists' findings on global warming imply is that we should improve our energy efficiency.
I hate CFDs. The flickering of them bugs the shit out of me. You want to legislate that I have to get rid of my incandescents and replace them with CFDs? Why? What right do you have to do so, to make my life miserable?
>>Compared to the first Stimulus Plan that cost us $866 (Carl Sagan's favorite word) Billions of Dollars, and now the (now that Stimulus is a bad word) proposed $447 Billion Jobs Plan that is really a Wealth Redistribution Plan by any other name, a mere $26 Billion infrastructure upgrade that actually does something useful sounds like a real bargain.
But, uh, just think about all the stuff the trillion dollars has got us!
Hell, the ARRA repainted road markings on a street not 200 feet from me. That's worth a cool trill, right?
Sigh... we could have replaced all of our coal power plants for that price, or expanded all of our overloaded interstates by a lane, or, hell, built a smart grid of our own.
>>I don't really get why you even bring that to topic, as it has NOTHING to do with the safety of oil or gas or nuclear or coal.
Sure it does. Since you think that mining and transporting uranium is a mark against nuclear, then you have to look at issues surrounding the extraction and transport of fossil fuels. Which, naturally, is much more lethal and harmful to the environment than nuclear. Even solar is much more harmful to mankind than nuclear.
I think I have you figured out, finally. You want there to be no side effects of an energy source whatsoever. But there are no perfect answers, no perfect solutions. You have to draw up pros and cons for every choice, and make a rational decision about which is best.
Personally, I think a nuclear and hydro backstop against a variable supply of wind and solar is the best answer for a lot of places. But you've inherited the irrational fear of nuclear that is apparently endemic to your country (oddly enough, the French are much less fearful of nuclear than the Germans) and so you exaggerate the "Con" column for nuclear far beyond any rational means, while ignoring the "Con" column for your pet energy sources of choice. You ignore that wind kills birds, or that solar kills people.
If you want to be honest, you have to directly confront reality, instead of pretending all these facts don't exist.
>>The fact that you could do the same with the iPad from the start (and for some time the iPhone too) makes you a liar or an idiot. Make that "and". So HELL YEAH.
I love how you cropped out the bit about being able to use Flash.
>>In other words if you dont inhale it and get poisoned by the "heavy metal" effect of it, it is not dangerous or radioactive at all. When it is in the concrete you wont get "free metallic" uranium as "heavy metal" into your body, after all it is uranium oxyde anyway.
All uranium oxides are at least slightly radioactive. They're much less harmful if they aren't being inhaled directly into your lungs, and the overall threat is probably pretty low, but you seem to think that the insignificant leak from TMI was a "significant" amount of radiation, so it's pretty clear that you're running with a double standard in your mind.
I'm not sure how you justify a (small) amount of radiation being safe when it comes from coal, but a similar amount being unbearable when it comes from a nuclear plant.
As to the safety of nuclear, I think the record speaks for itself. Do you know how many people have been killed by coal in the last 40 years? It's a lot. How many by nuclear? Even worse for you, how many by nuclear not counting Chernobyl? It's very close to zero. Even solar kills a lot of people in roofing accidents.
For example, there were two explosions within the last couple days: A gas pipeline exploded killing 100 in Kenya. A nuclear reprocessing plant exploded in southern France, killing 1.
During the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, we heard a lot about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. But did you hear about the Cosmo Oil refinery disaster in Chiba City? The one that burned for 10 days and killed six people? No? Why is the radiation from Fukushima (which didn't kill anyone) considered worse than an explosion that killed six?
>>By using an external keyboard and mouse? On a phone? You get what you deserve, Flash-Fanboy.
That's hilarious coming from a Cheerful Mac Fanboy.
I've used both Mac and Android products, and consider the Mac experience superior overall, but the ability to dock a tablet into an external keyboard (Asus Transformer) was the deal-winner for me. Not being able to use Flash, by contrast, is a deal-breaker.
The radiation is in the coal fly ash, which you're apparently building roads out of. Good for you.
>>Are you worried we take over the world with wind mills and solar panels?
Not particularly. I installed solar on my house, using Japanese (Kyocera) panels.
I'm more concerned about y'all building a whole new raft of coal power plants when you could switch to nuclear instead. I understand it's not your call, but my criticism is not of you (except where you're obviously misinformed), but of Germany as a whole. Look at how France has handled nuclear power in the last 40 years by contrast - they generate almost no CO2 from their entire energy sector, and are net exporters of power (including to places like Germany).
>>we don't know what to do with the waste
Again, if they're energetic enough to cause problems, they're energetic enough to burn for fuel. Hell, India simply tosses all its "waste" in a pit and runs a turbine off the heat it generates.
The only reason we don't have burner reactors is due to nonproliferation concerns, which recent events in Iran have shown to be sort of irrelevant.
>>Sure - but nobody talked about a technical standpoint. If you want to pretend that you could technically play those games if it weren't impossible because of its UI, play along. But you might as well pretend that with an iPhone - there's only a technical difference.
On android you can workaround the OSK issue. On an iPhone, you can't play them period.
Old accients? Or current pollution? Germanies modern plants, and that counts for all western modern plants only emmit CO2. All other emissions re really neglectible.
Sure, there are still old plants running, especially in the UK, that don't comply with modern standards. However those get replaced sooner or later.
It's interesting that you'll compare new coal against old nuclear in order to make your point. Old coal and old nuclear both have issues that modern designs don't have. It's also fascinating you talk about nuclear mining issues but not coal mining (or what goes into making a solar panel, for that matter), or that it's possible to store deposits in old coal mines but not old uranium mines. You have a very glaringly obvious double standard at work.
Even modern coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear, and CO2 of course is a very major issue right now.
The logical course of action for Germany would be to retire all of its old coal plants and replace them with Gen III nuclear.
2 things for you. 1) 99th percentile is far more exacerbated, and 99.9th percentile moreso... factors not in your graph but more fitting with our topic.
2) the gap even between the 95th and all others is increased, so I am still correct even when you try to include dentists and doctors (95th) with CEOs and bankers (99.9th, my actual point of discussion).
Eat your foot.
Nice attempt to move your argument, and to ignore both your claims that "Wages have not increased with inflation since the late 70s." and "The graph doesn't include inflation" have been shown to be complete bullshit.
Everyone has been doing better since the 50s and 60s. Everyone. The fact that the rich are rising faster is simply an artifact of the fact that the top 1% of people (the capitalist class) derive their income from corporate earnings (which are not capped on the upside) instead of W2 wages (which are).
>>The two big catastrophes and the small one in TMI dont count for me as negligible emissions.
The TMI emissions were negligible. Certainly when compared with coal. Fukushima and Chernobyl were both accidents that were the result of old designs, but still had a minimal impact when compared with coal.
>>Again, my definition is: it does not harm. Nuclear plants don't fall into that definition.
>>In germany coal ash is used in road construction and houses. No spills....
Depending on how much tritium "gets leaked every year" (and you call us a 3rd world country, lol), the coal ash could very well be releasing more radiation into the atmosphere.
>>Green: that is renewable, water, wind, geothermal, solar.
Green is something good for the environment. It is only tangentially related to being renewable. Many environmentalists, for example, do not think that hydro is green power, but that nuclear is.
Nuclear has the lowest deaths per megawatt of any energy source, produces negligible emissions, and has enough fuel lying around to last for quite a long time. The issues with waste are primarily political in nature, not technical, due to nonproliferation concerns.
>>But there is no discernable difference in usability between "won't work" and "there is a problem with the onscreen keyboard that makes the game unplayable".
There's a huge difference from a tech standpoint. One basically means that flash is running as designed, the other is flash is failing to run at all on Android, which would be a much more severe problem.
Graphs like that one are completely worthless because they don't account for inflation. Assuming an optimistic inflation of 2% annual, that chart would actually prove you wrong.
Did you even bother to read the description?
It's in "constant 2007 dollars", which means it is adjusted for inflation.
But good try, though - shame you're completely wrong.
>>The plants currently under construction are mainly to replace older coal plants. And they reduce the CO2 emission bottom line. >>You call nuclear "green" based on what? Because ungreen is CO2? So nuclear waste is: green? Or what?
There's no such thing as clean coal. Even with zero emissions, what do you do with the fly ash? Oh, what, you have to store it somewhere? Pfft.
In your post to Khayman (who actually does know what he's talking about, he's a climate scientist) you say that nuclear waste isn't stored anywhere. That's quite an odd statement. Most countries will at least put the waste into dry cask storage.:p
>>You claim nuclear is green, I claim: no. Simply because the waste problem and the mining is so dirty. I did not mention that before, because it is obvious. Transportation of fuel and construction and decommissioning creates waste, CO2, and radioactive emissions e.g. tritium. All this is NOT GREEN. >>I'm following those topics since... 35 years or so?
Nuclear is close enough to zero emissions to not matter. If you want to get technical, then people driving to the plant generate CO2. Ok, sure. That would explain why idiot global warming protestors chained themselves to Diablo Canyon around here a couple years ago.:P
Energetic waste is another name for fuel. If you were to build new plants that burned the waste of the old plants, then you'd not only have no issues with digging up new uranium (and, what, you think coal mining is clean? Lol.) but you'd also solve your nuclear waste issues.
And... really? Radioactive emissions? And you're honestly trying to convince me that normally operating nuclear plants emit radiation and in the same breath convince me you're an energy expert? You funny.
>>The difference is: you believe otherwise, and I know.
Yes, obviously "you know".:p
You certainly know your disinformation. Otherwise, you wouldn't be claiming that zero (or near enough to zero to matter) nuclear plants aren't green. And you certainly somehow can maintain two contradictory ideas in your head: 1) That green power is important, and 2) CO2 emissions aren't important.
You certainly don't know that as of right now CCS systems are inordinately expensive and impractical (they roughly triple the cost of coal power).
>>Claiming nuclear power is green only shows you have no clue about it.
Yes, because they produce so much CO2 and other emissions, am I right?
People like you make me weep for the state of science in Germany.
Pffft. You've got your lies and you're sticking to them. I hope you're very rich, else your ignorance hurts you(us).
Wages have not increased with inflation since the late 70s. Debt is rampant, and few are able to invest as our parents did. Real property and ownership (wealth) is amassed and enforced to the richest, and the wealth disparity among people expands. This is the truth. Lie all you want, but you know you're full of shit.
>>I am running about a 70% fail rate for flash games on my android tablet. >>websites assume a keyboard or mouse to be present. so the on screen keybaord overlay tends to cover up the important bits.
There's a difference between "failing to run" and issues with the onscreen keyboard. I have a physical keyboard on my tablet (ASUS Transformer) which actually reveals the opposite problem - most Android apps don't work very well with a full keyboard. Expecting things like "pageup" and "pagedown" to work within your PDF viewer? Hah! (Actually, EzPDF just patched it in last week.)
>>precisely why there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of a decreasing number of people
Only if you look at percentages. If you look at constant dollars, there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of an increasing number of people.
In other words, if you buy into the liberal talking-point version of history, the middle class reached its zenith in the 50s and 60s, and it's been downhill ever since since then. Reality, however, disagrees.
Slashdot Mirror
>>What right do you have to dump tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere so you can have the kind of lighting you fancy?
I have solar on my house, bitch.
So I'll say it again, who are you to legislate what the fuck kind of light bulbs I have?
>>Why are you all up in arms about a light bulb?
Because, as I said, CFDs drive me nuts with their flickering.
>>Due to the speed of light, isn't there a limitation on how fast you can clock a CPU die? As I know, eventually you will run into problems maintaining synchronicity.
A nanosecond = one foot. (Take that, metric system!)
You can calculate the theoretical maximum thereby, by just plugging in clock rate and die size.
>>The reason noone is getting upset by the "diamond planet" is because noone really cares all that much - it doesn't affect them in their day-to-day lives.
Correct. One of the prevailing views on both the left and right is that if AGW is true, this implies we have to either get rid of our cars, or drive a lot less. (AGW -> !car) It's not a fringe belief, either - James Hansen himself wants to eliminate all fossil fuels, so hey, good luck driving your 50MPG Honda Civic with no gas. Have fun trying to get to work, or buy groceries. Etc., etc. The mistake" that right wing people make is that they don't like the conclusion (of having to give up their cars, over their dead bodies) and so reject the premise. It's a sort of Modus Tollens of the political sphere.
The problem is, of course, that people like Hansen are wrong. We don't need to eliminate all fossil fuels to stablize the global temperature at a livable level. We need to reduce it by about half, which, incidentally, is about what we produce from coal power plants. As Germany just demonstrated, it's a lot easier to replace your power infrastructure than it is to get people to stop driving cars.
The correct answer to AGW, therefore, suggests itself, which I call the Shaka Energy Plan: replace coal with nuclear, use coal for gasoline (keeping Virginia happy and us off foreign oil imports), and let people keep driving their cars.
>>Actually what climate scientists' findings on global warming imply is that we should improve our energy efficiency.
I hate CFDs. The flickering of them bugs the shit out of me. You want to legislate that I have to get rid of my incandescents and replace them with CFDs? Why? What right do you have to do so, to make my life miserable?
>>Compared to the first Stimulus Plan that cost us $866 (Carl Sagan's favorite word) Billions of Dollars, and now the (now that Stimulus is a bad word) proposed $447 Billion Jobs Plan that is really a Wealth Redistribution Plan by any other name, a mere $26 Billion infrastructure upgrade that actually does something useful sounds like a real bargain.
But, uh, just think about all the stuff the trillion dollars has got us!
Hell, the ARRA repainted road markings on a street not 200 feet from me. That's worth a cool trill, right?
Sigh... we could have replaced all of our coal power plants for that price, or expanded all of our overloaded interstates by a lane, or, hell, built a smart grid of our own.
>>I don't really get why you even bring that to topic, as it has NOTHING to do with the safety of oil or gas or nuclear or coal.
Sure it does. Since you think that mining and transporting uranium is a mark against nuclear, then you have to look at issues surrounding the extraction and transport of fossil fuels. Which, naturally, is much more lethal and harmful to the environment than nuclear. Even solar is much more harmful to mankind than nuclear.
I think I have you figured out, finally. You want there to be no side effects of an energy source whatsoever. But there are no perfect answers, no perfect solutions. You have to draw up pros and cons for every choice, and make a rational decision about which is best.
Personally, I think a nuclear and hydro backstop against a variable supply of wind and solar is the best answer for a lot of places. But you've inherited the irrational fear of nuclear that is apparently endemic to your country (oddly enough, the French are much less fearful of nuclear than the Germans) and so you exaggerate the "Con" column for nuclear far beyond any rational means, while ignoring the "Con" column for your pet energy sources of choice. You ignore that wind kills birds, or that solar kills people.
If you want to be honest, you have to directly confront reality, instead of pretending all these facts don't exist.
>>You have gone from hacker/cracker to security consultant via quite a difficult route.
Yeah, he's even a consultant for Tai Yong Medical. =) I laughed out loud when I saw this in the game (Deus Ex Human Revolution):
http://whatthegeek.net/2011/08/30/kevin-mitnick-will-have-work-in-2027-thanks-to-deus-ex-human-revolution/
I wonder what Kevin thinks about this?
>>The fact that you could do the same with the iPad from the start (and for some time the iPhone too) makes you a liar or an idiot. Make that "and". So HELL YEAH.
I love how you cropped out the bit about being able to use Flash.
Classy!
>>In other words if you dont inhale it and get poisoned by the "heavy metal" effect of it, it is not dangerous or radioactive at all. When it is in the concrete you wont get "free metallic" uranium as "heavy metal" into your body, after all it is uranium oxyde anyway.
All uranium oxides are at least slightly radioactive. They're much less harmful if they aren't being inhaled directly into your lungs, and the overall threat is probably pretty low, but you seem to think that the insignificant leak from TMI was a "significant" amount of radiation, so it's pretty clear that you're running with a double standard in your mind.
I'm not sure how you justify a (small) amount of radiation being safe when it comes from coal, but a similar amount being unbearable when it comes from a nuclear plant.
As to the safety of nuclear, I think the record speaks for itself. Do you know how many people have been killed by coal in the last 40 years? It's a lot.
How many by nuclear? Even worse for you, how many by nuclear not counting Chernobyl? It's very close to zero.
Even solar kills a lot of people in roofing accidents.
For example, there were two explosions within the last couple days:
A gas pipeline exploded killing 100 in Kenya.
A nuclear reprocessing plant exploded in southern France, killing 1.
During the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, we heard a lot about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. But did you hear about the Cosmo Oil refinery disaster in Chiba City? The one that burned for 10 days and killed six people? No? Why is the radiation from Fukushima (which didn't kill anyone) considered worse than an explosion that killed six?
Irrationalism is never the answer, Angel.
>>By using an external keyboard and mouse? On a phone? You get what you deserve, Flash-Fanboy.
That's hilarious coming from a Cheerful Mac Fanboy.
I've used both Mac and Android products, and consider the Mac experience superior overall, but the ability to dock a tablet into an external keyboard (Asus Transformer) was the deal-winner for me. Not being able to use Flash, by contrast, is a deal-breaker.
So yeah.
>>about the myth coal plants would polute the world with radiactivity
It's not a myth. I'm surprised with your "35 years" of studying the subject you haven't read articles such as this one:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
The radiation is in the coal fly ash, which you're apparently building roads out of. Good for you.
>>Are you worried we take over the world with wind mills and solar panels?
Not particularly. I installed solar on my house, using Japanese (Kyocera) panels.
I'm more concerned about y'all building a whole new raft of coal power plants when you could switch to nuclear instead. I understand it's not your call, but my criticism is not of you (except where you're obviously misinformed), but of Germany as a whole. Look at how France has handled nuclear power in the last 40 years by contrast - they generate almost no CO2 from their entire energy sector, and are net exporters of power (including to places like Germany).
>>we don't know what to do with the waste
Again, if they're energetic enough to cause problems, they're energetic enough to burn for fuel. Hell, India simply tosses all its "waste" in a pit and runs a turbine off the heat it generates.
The only reason we don't have burner reactors is due to nonproliferation concerns, which recent events in Iran have shown to be sort of irrelevant.
>>Dewey Defeats Truman!
Dude, put a SPOILER ALERT on that shit, ok?
>>Sure - but nobody talked about a technical standpoint. If you want to pretend that you could technically play those games if it weren't impossible because of its UI, play along. But you might as well pretend that with an iPhone - there's only a technical difference.
On android you can workaround the OSK issue. On an iPhone, you can't play them period.
It's interesting that you'll compare new coal against old nuclear in order to make your point. Old coal and old nuclear both have issues that modern designs don't have. It's also fascinating you talk about nuclear mining issues but not coal mining (or what goes into making a solar panel, for that matter), or that it's possible to store deposits in old coal mines but not old uranium mines. You have a very glaringly obvious double standard at work.
Even modern coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear, and CO2 of course is a very major issue right now.
The logical course of action for Germany would be to retire all of its old coal plants and replace them with Gen III nuclear.
Nice attempt to move your argument, and to ignore both your claims that "Wages have not increased with inflation since the late 70s." and "The graph doesn't include inflation" have been shown to be complete bullshit.
Everyone has been doing better since the 50s and 60s. Everyone. The fact that the rich are rising faster is simply an artifact of the fact that the top 1% of people (the capitalist class) derive their income from corporate earnings (which are not capped on the upside) instead of W2 wages (which are).
>>The two big catastrophes and the small one in TMI dont count for me as negligible emissions.
The TMI emissions were negligible. Certainly when compared with coal. Fukushima and Chernobyl were both accidents that were the result of old designs, but still had a minimal impact when compared with coal.
>>Again, my definition is: it does not harm. Nuclear plants don't fall into that definition.
Then wind, solar, and tidal are not green either.
>>In germany coal ash is used in road construction and houses. No spills ....
Depending on how much tritium "gets leaked every year" (and you call us a 3rd world country, lol), the coal ash could very well be releasing more radiation into the atmosphere.
>>Green: that is renewable, water, wind, geothermal, solar.
Green is something good for the environment. It is only tangentially related to being renewable. Many environmentalists, for example, do not think that hydro is green power, but that nuclear is.
Nuclear has the lowest deaths per megawatt of any energy source, produces negligible emissions, and has enough fuel lying around to last for quite a long time. The issues with waste are primarily political in nature, not technical, due to nonproliferation concerns.
>>But there is no discernable difference in usability between "won't work" and "there is a problem with the onscreen keyboard that makes the game unplayable".
There's a huge difference from a tech standpoint. One basically means that flash is running as designed, the other is flash is failing to run at all on Android, which would be a much more severe problem.
There's ways around the OSK issue.
Did you even bother to read the description?
It's in "constant 2007 dollars", which means it is adjusted for inflation.
But good try, though - shame you're completely wrong.
>>The plants currently under construction are mainly to replace older coal plants. And they reduce the CO2 emission bottom line.
>>You call nuclear "green" based on what? Because ungreen is CO2? So nuclear waste is: green? Or what?
There's no such thing as clean coal. Even with zero emissions, what do you do with the fly ash? Oh, what, you have to store it somewhere? Pfft.
Then you get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
In your post to Khayman (who actually does know what he's talking about, he's a climate scientist) you say that nuclear waste isn't stored anywhere. That's quite an odd statement. Most countries will at least put the waste into dry cask storage. :p
>>You claim nuclear is green, I claim: no. Simply because the waste problem and the mining is so dirty. I did not mention that before, because it is obvious. Transportation of fuel and construction and decommissioning creates waste, CO2, and radioactive emissions e.g. tritium. All this is NOT GREEN. ... 35 years or so?
>>I'm following those topics since
Nuclear is close enough to zero emissions to not matter. If you want to get technical, then people driving to the plant generate CO2. Ok, sure. That would explain why idiot global warming protestors chained themselves to Diablo Canyon around here a couple years ago. :P
Energetic waste is another name for fuel. If you were to build new plants that burned the waste of the old plants, then you'd not only have no issues with digging up new uranium (and, what, you think coal mining is clean? Lol.) but you'd also solve your nuclear waste issues.
And... really? Radioactive emissions? And you're honestly trying to convince me that normally operating nuclear plants emit radiation and in the same breath convince me you're an energy expert? You funny.
You think coal fly ash isn't radioactive?
>>The difference is: you believe otherwise, and I know.
Yes, obviously "you know". :p
You certainly know your disinformation. Otherwise, you wouldn't be claiming that zero (or near enough to zero to matter) nuclear plants aren't green. And you certainly somehow can maintain two contradictory ideas in your head: 1) That green power is important, and 2) CO2 emissions aren't important.
You certainly don't know that as of right now CCS systems are inordinately expensive and impractical (they roughly triple the cost of coal power).
>>Claiming nuclear power is green only shows you have no clue about it.
Yes, because they produce so much CO2 and other emissions, am I right?
People like you make me weep for the state of science in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
Damn... it must hurt to be so wrong.
>>I am running about a 70% fail rate for flash games on my android tablet.
>>websites assume a keyboard or mouse to be present. so the on screen keybaord overlay tends to cover up the important bits.
There's a difference between "failing to run" and issues with the onscreen keyboard. I have a physical keyboard on my tablet (ASUS Transformer) which actually reveals the opposite problem - most Android apps don't work very well with a full keyboard. Expecting things like "pageup" and "pagedown" to work within your PDF viewer? Hah! (Actually, EzPDF just patched it in last week.)
>>In germany we don't have green nuclear power.
Yes, I'm sure they produce much more CO2 than the coal plants you're going to be replacing them with.
>>Why don't you stop telling such mythes?
Coal, even "clean coal" is the worst source of energy on the planet, other than its low cost. It's amazing you believe otherwise.
>>precisely why there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of a decreasing number of people
Only if you look at percentages. If you look at constant dollars, there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of an increasing number of people.
In other words, if you buy into the liberal talking-point version of history, the middle class reached its zenith in the 50s and 60s, and it's been downhill ever since since then. Reality, however, disagrees.