It's worth noting that not only was there a major change, but there also is an issue of significantly increased checks for cancers commonly associated with irradiation (but which may or may not be caused by radiation), which in turn results in more findings of said cancers and ironically, more people that survive those cancers as they are found early enough to be able to treat them.
Real killer in the territory around Chernobyl, and across all former USSR members is alcohol, and it's also by far the biggest factor in the shortening of life-spans (observable also by remarkable difference between average age of men vs women).
Not able =! Don't want to go the way of frontiersman "step on my lawn and I'll kill you" America.
You can go two ways about security. First is to just wall everything important up, and leave the rest to fend for themselves (in turn creating more of those who will storm your walls, requiring more walls..). That is the path that USA and many third world countries choose, because it's the fairly cheap way of doing it, especially when you only care about a few percent of wealthy who can afford the walls and guards.
Other way is to control what happens before people who actually do mean harm ever get to the plant. That is the way used in Europe in general. Society lives in a more happy and to extent more controlled way of life, and as a result people who want to be terrorists stand out badly and get nailed before the act. That's why Breivik et al are rare exceptions to the rule, and why we have a whole lot less crime while having a whole lot less prisoners at the same time. Just recently after Breivik we had a big wave of even more scrutiny over "what comes in" in Europe, with arrests of people ordering "strangely big portions of fertiliser". And as investigation has showed, Breivik had a ridiculous amount of luck on his side, coming close to being found out several times during his preparations, because he really stood out with his bomb making antics even in very sparsely populated rural Norway and being very smart and cautious.
Now imagine someone trying to do the same in much more populated rural France. Security forces will have your ass before you get your bomb half done because you'll stand out. That is if european ETA-like terrorists will have not get you first for indiscriminate targeting that would harm their currently widespread agenda of "kill only certain politicians, cause maximum property damage and avoid damage to civilians at all costs".
Finally, there's a really funny question of "what exactly will you bomb at a nuclear plant"? Reactor? It's solid steel - there are no welding seams. You'll need a shitload of explosives, and some way of actually strapping them onto the reactor vessel to do the damage to it, not to mention that blowing it up... will terminate criticality so all you get is localized spread of fissile material from reactor as far as your bomb can carry it which will usually mean inside the reactor building meaning just to get fissile materials out, you'll have to raze that too. Better bring many truckloads of high explosives. Cooling systems? Reactor will just be scrambled with boric acid and all the damage you do will be limited to having to get a new reactor vessel. This is one of the parts that many anti-nuclear "but TERRORISTS" people like to ignore - nuclear power plant is just not an attractive target for indiscriminate bombing - especially since there are far, FAR easier targets to bomb if you want to cause massive mayhem, such as large population centers.
This is actually one of the dirtier secrets behind Greenpeace and similar organizations. They have no qualms with accepting "anonymous" donations from interested parties, even when those interested parties are ones they go against.
"Least polluting" is arguable. Hydro and reasonably used geothermal are very good runner-ups in the competition. They're also quite a bit riskier then nuclear though, but just as nuclear this is mostly accident-related risk. There is little to no of "it's on, so it's causing damage" factor, just like with nuclear.
I'd like to see how that "measurability" was established, considering that scientists can't even figure out if minor increase in radioactivity is net negative or net positive, as there are different factors at play, which represent both directions.
Oh, you're probably referring to stuff like being exposed to elements for prolonged time, having to eat dirty food, and so on. Bad news: that was earthquake and tsunami. They also killed over thirty thousand people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.
There was this really funny research on survivors of people who were putting out Chernobyl fires. Of those who survived the ordeal and a couple of months after it (when most people who got lethal dose died), there was a greater portion of them alive now then there was of general population. This was (at least partially) attributed to significant increase in health checks of the rescue crews, which allowed medics to find many problems and fix them rather then have them evolve into something incurably lethal (as is the case with many cancers).
So should we now state that Fukushima accident will likely increase life expectancy of the workers who were fixing it like it was in Chernobyl. We'll know in a couple of decades.
Problem is, for many of us browser itself doesn't matter. What matters is functionality offered, and when much if not most of the necessary functionality comes from add-ons, add-ons matter more then browser itself.
To be technical, piracy is copyright infringement for profit. Copyright infringement without profit... is not piracy. It's copyright infringement.
It's just that "copyright infringement" is really hard to get people to feel guilty about, so we had a heavy "it's PIRACY" propaganda ran over us for last decade or so. And now, when it's real piracy, people actually have to explain what they mean.
"Probing air defenses" = flying a fighter/bomber/civilian-looking craft just barely over borders, and using your surveillance network to monitor who responds, when and how.
This is a constant and ongoing process, that utilizes MANNED aircraft for probe itself, and unmanned for reconnaissance. It assists first strike planning by giving information on which targets to prioritize to maximize disruption of chain of command and response speed and quality.
Military plans for ALL scenarios, and executes one that it's given an order to execute. Therefore preparation for all scenarios must be conducted when possible.
What...the...fuck? Frankly, if US military hasn't been flying any reconnaissance flights into Iran, they'd be up for criminal negligence. It's their damn job to keep assessing the defences of the potential hostile target. Hell, they do it to NEUTRAL countries all the time.
Granted, in most of the cases with neutral countries, there is some sort of an agreement in place for mutual fly-overs and "test reaction speed" runs are rare event that happens about once a year or even less. But if you seriously believe that US hasn't been flying reconnaissance flights over Iran for decades, you're either ignorant or plain foolish.
Want to bet? I bet that majority people in USA believe that war against Iran is justifiable.
People are gullible by their very nature, and in large empires like USA, they are raised and taught to be more gullible then they would otherwise be, because the "needs of the motherland" require it.
Whoever modded this insightful, hit yourself, and excuse yourself from any military-related discussion. You are either utterly stupid, or utterly ignorant, and in both cases, you have no place in a discussion like this beyond asking "how does this work?".
Aerial surveillance, especially low altitude aerial surveillance is of CRUCIAL importance. You cannot see things like tunnel network entrances, weapon caches, small defence emplacements and so on with high altitude surveillance from U2 and satellites when they are properly concealed against it. And with that surveillance being in existence for decades, countries like Iran have long perfected such camouflaging. What looks like a natural hill to a satellite becomes a hidden pillbox full of anti-armor weaponry when photographed from an angle. What looks like a bunch of civilian trucks becomes a mobile radar site. What looks like a mobile radar site becomes a fake transmitters designed to attract HARMs. Etc. Fake "weapon systems" designed specifically to fool satellite surveillance are something of a Russian speciality.
If you don't believe it, look at end of cold war. USSR army size has been throught to be about 40% greater then it really was, because Red Army perfected techniques for faking weapon systems specifically for satellite and U2 surveillance. If there was a war, most of the first strike would end up hitting wooden models and balloons that look like weapons while real weapons would be hidden in bunkers and emplacements that look like natural hills to a satellite. That is what drones are for - exact mapping rather then general one you do with a satellite/U2 sweep.
No, that is an opinion of an opinionated, and fully fed civilian. Fed with bullshit that is.
Reality is, essentially every country that has been under any international pressure has long perfected techniques of hiding important weapon caches, tunnel entrances and other important assets from high altitude aerial surveillance. That is why when you are preparing for an attack, you need low altitude aerial surveillance to find as many of those as possible.
You can go in half-blind, sure, and you'll likely win anyway. But you'll take a whole lot more losses then you need because you'll keep running into those defences you never saw, as they bite you in the ass. Hard.
And unlike folks you like, US military command isn't dumb, ignorant, or too focused on its own propaganda. Lessons from Iraq have actually been learnt, as have been ones from Afghanistan.
Both history and psychology are choke full of it. It largely appears to be something we default to, both on leader and personal level. From leaders thinking that they will do good to family fathers thinking they know better, it's just the way we work.
And looking at your ethical predecessor, French Revolution, we can see that your intention not to continue keeping that power will last just as long as your lack of power.
You missed my point. World is in general lead by public opinion, not opinion of few enlightened individuals. And as organised religion and its popularity shows, your way of thinking is rare. Most people honestly believe that THEY KNOW BETTER, even when it comes to how to live someone else's life.
Thing is, evidence out there suggests that this way of thinking is in fact hard-wired in us as a survival mechanism. So even if you think you're different, deep down inside you're not. It's a concept (in)famously known as "power corrupts". I.e. you simply aren't in a position that warrants you enough power to easily influence others on massive enough scale and therefore do not know your true self.
Just a different angle for you to consider. I'm not picking on the message itself, as I largely agree with it.
The point of monopoly claim is for that this specific implementation of autocad you're distributing. Your copyright is your monopoly to distribute and permit distribution of copies. No one but copyright owner can do this according to copyright laws. That is the basis of copyright - monopoly.
This really is completely unarguable. It's a simple fact. What you should be arguing is a far more defensible position of "my monopoly is created as means to generate profit from my work, and if I didn't have this profit I would have no incentive to get the work done in the first place". This direction of argument reduces the argument to rather idealistic points of view of "right to profit" vs "right to knowledge". Historically humanity needed BOTH to advance, which means that a balance between the two will have to be found.
In most cases, it's cheaper to simply erect a copy of your "widget's" factory. Fucking around with original designs requires good engineering work to understand them. Copying a factory doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worth noting that not only was there a major change, but there also is an issue of significantly increased checks for cancers commonly associated with irradiation (but which may or may not be caused by radiation), which in turn results in more findings of said cancers and ironically, more people that survive those cancers as they are found early enough to be able to treat them.
Real killer in the territory around Chernobyl, and across all former USSR members is alcohol, and it's also by far the biggest factor in the shortening of life-spans (observable also by remarkable difference between average age of men vs women).
Not able =! Don't want to go the way of frontiersman "step on my lawn and I'll kill you" America.
You can go two ways about security. First is to just wall everything important up, and leave the rest to fend for themselves (in turn creating more of those who will storm your walls, requiring more walls..). That is the path that USA and many third world countries choose, because it's the fairly cheap way of doing it, especially when you only care about a few percent of wealthy who can afford the walls and guards.
Other way is to control what happens before people who actually do mean harm ever get to the plant. That is the way used in Europe in general. Society lives in a more happy and to extent more controlled way of life, and as a result people who want to be terrorists stand out badly and get nailed before the act. That's why Breivik et al are rare exceptions to the rule, and why we have a whole lot less crime while having a whole lot less prisoners at the same time. Just recently after Breivik we had a big wave of even more scrutiny over "what comes in" in Europe, with arrests of people ordering "strangely big portions of fertiliser". And as investigation has showed, Breivik had a ridiculous amount of luck on his side, coming close to being found out several times during his preparations, because he really stood out with his bomb making antics even in very sparsely populated rural Norway and being very smart and cautious.
Now imagine someone trying to do the same in much more populated rural France. Security forces will have your ass before you get your bomb half done because you'll stand out. That is if european ETA-like terrorists will have not get you first for indiscriminate targeting that would harm their currently widespread agenda of "kill only certain politicians, cause maximum property damage and avoid damage to civilians at all costs".
Finally, there's a really funny question of "what exactly will you bomb at a nuclear plant"? Reactor? It's solid steel - there are no welding seams. You'll need a shitload of explosives, and some way of actually strapping them onto the reactor vessel to do the damage to it, not to mention that blowing it up... will terminate criticality so all you get is localized spread of fissile material from reactor as far as your bomb can carry it which will usually mean inside the reactor building meaning just to get fissile materials out, you'll have to raze that too. Better bring many truckloads of high explosives. Cooling systems? Reactor will just be scrambled with boric acid and all the damage you do will be limited to having to get a new reactor vessel. This is one of the parts that many anti-nuclear "but TERRORISTS" people like to ignore - nuclear power plant is just not an attractive target for indiscriminate bombing - especially since there are far, FAR easier targets to bomb if you want to cause massive mayhem, such as large population centers.
This is actually one of the dirtier secrets behind Greenpeace and similar organizations. They have no qualms with accepting "anonymous" donations from interested parties, even when those interested parties are ones they go against.
"Least polluting" is arguable. Hydro and reasonably used geothermal are very good runner-ups in the competition. They're also quite a bit riskier then nuclear though, but just as nuclear this is mostly accident-related risk. There is little to no of "it's on, so it's causing damage" factor, just like with nuclear.
I'd like to see how that "measurability" was established, considering that scientists can't even figure out if minor increase in radioactivity is net negative or net positive, as there are different factors at play, which represent both directions.
Oh, you're probably referring to stuff like being exposed to elements for prolonged time, having to eat dirty food, and so on. Bad news: that was earthquake and tsunami. They also killed over thirty thousand people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.
There was this really funny research on survivors of people who were putting out Chernobyl fires. Of those who survived the ordeal and a couple of months after it (when most people who got lethal dose died), there was a greater portion of them alive now then there was of general population. This was (at least partially) attributed to significant increase in health checks of the rescue crews, which allowed medics to find many problems and fix them rather then have them evolve into something incurably lethal (as is the case with many cancers).
So should we now state that Fukushima accident will likely increase life expectancy of the workers who were fixing it like it was in Chernobyl. We'll know in a couple of decades.
Problem is, for many of us browser itself doesn't matter. What matters is functionality offered, and when much if not most of the necessary functionality comes from add-ons, add-ons matter more then browser itself.
Welcome to why I still use FF3.6.
For that reason, you should install IE.
I'm serious.
Not fixed at all. Both statements are equally true.
To be technical, piracy is copyright infringement for profit. Copyright infringement without profit... is not piracy. It's copyright infringement.
It's just that "copyright infringement" is really hard to get people to feel guilty about, so we had a heavy "it's PIRACY" propaganda ran over us for last decade or so. And now, when it's real piracy, people actually have to explain what they mean.
Funny.
While I agree, no matter how you stretch it, it's still not fraud.
"Probing air defenses" = flying a fighter/bomber/civilian-looking craft just barely over borders, and using your surveillance network to monitor who responds, when and how.
This is a constant and ongoing process, that utilizes MANNED aircraft for probe itself, and unmanned for reconnaissance. It assists first strike planning by giving information on which targets to prioritize to maximize disruption of chain of command and response speed and quality.
The "allegations of fraud" started several months before the elections.
Military plans for ALL scenarios, and executes one that it's given an order to execute. Therefore preparation for all scenarios must be conducted when possible.
What...the...fuck? Frankly, if US military hasn't been flying any reconnaissance flights into Iran, they'd be up for criminal negligence. It's their damn job to keep assessing the defences of the potential hostile target. Hell, they do it to NEUTRAL countries all the time.
Granted, in most of the cases with neutral countries, there is some sort of an agreement in place for mutual fly-overs and "test reaction speed" runs are rare event that happens about once a year or even less. But if you seriously believe that US hasn't been flying reconnaissance flights over Iran for decades, you're either ignorant or plain foolish.
Want to bet? I bet that majority people in USA believe that war against Iran is justifiable.
People are gullible by their very nature, and in large empires like USA, they are raised and taught to be more gullible then they would otherwise be, because the "needs of the motherland" require it.
Whoever modded this insightful, hit yourself, and excuse yourself from any military-related discussion. You are either utterly stupid, or utterly ignorant, and in both cases, you have no place in a discussion like this beyond asking "how does this work?".
Aerial surveillance, especially low altitude aerial surveillance is of CRUCIAL importance. You cannot see things like tunnel network entrances, weapon caches, small defence emplacements and so on with high altitude surveillance from U2 and satellites when they are properly concealed against it. And with that surveillance being in existence for decades, countries like Iran have long perfected such camouflaging. What looks like a natural hill to a satellite becomes a hidden pillbox full of anti-armor weaponry when photographed from an angle. What looks like a bunch of civilian trucks becomes a mobile radar site. What looks like a mobile radar site becomes a fake transmitters designed to attract HARMs. Etc. Fake "weapon systems" designed specifically to fool satellite surveillance are something of a Russian speciality.
If you don't believe it, look at end of cold war. USSR army size has been throught to be about 40% greater then it really was, because Red Army perfected techniques for faking weapon systems specifically for satellite and U2 surveillance. If there was a war, most of the first strike would end up hitting wooden models and balloons that look like weapons while real weapons would be hidden in bunkers and emplacements that look like natural hills to a satellite. That is what drones are for - exact mapping rather then general one you do with a satellite/U2 sweep.
No, that is an opinion of an opinionated, and fully fed civilian. Fed with bullshit that is.
Reality is, essentially every country that has been under any international pressure has long perfected techniques of hiding important weapon caches, tunnel entrances and other important assets from high altitude aerial surveillance. That is why when you are preparing for an attack, you need low altitude aerial surveillance to find as many of those as possible.
You can go in half-blind, sure, and you'll likely win anyway. But you'll take a whole lot more losses then you need because you'll keep running into those defences you never saw, as they bite you in the ass. Hard.
And unlike folks you like, US military command isn't dumb, ignorant, or too focused on its own propaganda. Lessons from Iraq have actually been learnt, as have been ones from Afghanistan.
Both history and psychology are choke full of it. It largely appears to be something we default to, both on leader and personal level. From leaders thinking that they will do good to family fathers thinking they know better, it's just the way we work.
And looking at your ethical predecessor, French Revolution, we can see that your intention not to continue keeping that power will last just as long as your lack of power.
Blowin up near the orbit is more then enough. EMP will fry those servers.
You missed my point. World is in general lead by public opinion, not opinion of few enlightened individuals. And as organised religion and its popularity shows, your way of thinking is rare. Most people honestly believe that THEY KNOW BETTER, even when it comes to how to live someone else's life.
Thing is, evidence out there suggests that this way of thinking is in fact hard-wired in us as a survival mechanism. So even if you think you're different, deep down inside you're not. It's a concept (in)famously known as "power corrupts". I.e. you simply aren't in a position that warrants you enough power to easily influence others on massive enough scale and therefore do not know your true self.
Just a different angle for you to consider. I'm not picking on the message itself, as I largely agree with it.
Every organised religion in the world would like a word with you on how human mind works and just how exceptional (or deluded about yourself) you are.
So did xbox division, for a long time. Your point?
The point of monopoly claim is for that this specific implementation of autocad you're distributing. Your copyright is your monopoly to distribute and permit distribution of copies. No one but copyright owner can do this according to copyright laws. That is the basis of copyright - monopoly.
This really is completely unarguable. It's a simple fact. What you should be arguing is a far more defensible position of "my monopoly is created as means to generate profit from my work, and if I didn't have this profit I would have no incentive to get the work done in the first place". This direction of argument reduces the argument to rather idealistic points of view of "right to profit" vs "right to knowledge". Historically humanity needed BOTH to advance, which means that a balance between the two will have to be found.
In most cases, it's cheaper to simply erect a copy of your "widget's" factory. Fucking around with original designs requires good engineering work to understand them. Copying a factory doesn't.